Preview
Motion No. 5128844
NAILAH K. BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Court of Common Pleas
MOTION TO...
November 2,2023 16:53
By: CARYN M. GROEDEL 0060131
Confirmation Nbr. 3008066
CARYN GROEDEL & ASSOCIATES CO LPA CV 23 978501
vs.
Judge: WILLIAM EB.VODREY
RON LARAWAY
Pages Filed: 32
Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
CARYN GROEDEL & ASSOCIATES ) CASE NO. CV-23-978501
CO., LPA )
) JUDGE WILLIAM F.B. VODREY
Plaintiff )
) PLAINTIFF AND THIRD-PARTY
vs. ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
) STRIKE SOME OF DEFENDANT’S
RONALD LARAWAY ) RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, OR
Defendant ) IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION
) TO DEEM RFAs ADMITTED
) AND/OR MOTION TO COMPEL
) RESPONSES THAT COMPLY
) WITH THE CIVIL RULES
Plaintiff, Caryn Groedel & Associates Co., LPA, and third-party Defendant, Caryn M.
Groedel, hereby move this Honorable Court to strike the superfluous additions to Defendant’s
Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission nos. 6, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 33 and 40, as
Defendant failed to follow the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure - specifically, Civ.R. 36(A)(2) -
by asserting denials that do not “fairly meet the substance of the requested admission”, and by
qualifying his response where qualifications were not requested or required. Defendant also
improperly responded to Plaintiff’s RFAs 17, 20,37, 38, and 39.
The reasons for this motion, and the relief requested, herein, are more fully described in
the Memorandum attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Caryn M. Groedel_________
Caryn M. Groedel (0060131)
cgroedel@groedel-law.com
Caryn Groedel & Associates Co., LPA
208 Spriggel Drive
Munroe Falls, OH 44262
1291 SW Mulberry Way
Boca Raton, FL 33486
Phone: 440-230-3808
Fax: 440-664-2478
Counsel for Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant
Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
CARYN GROEDEL & ASSOCIATES ) CASE NO. CV-23-978501
CO., LPA )
) JUDGE WILLIAM F.B. VODREY
Plaintiff )
) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
) PLAINTIFF’S AND THIRD-PARTY
vs.
) DEFENDANTS MOTION TO
) STRIKE SOME OF DEFENDANT’S
RONALD LARAWAY
) RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, OR
Defendant
) IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION
) TO COMPEL RESPONSES THAT
) COMPLY WITH THE OHIO RLES
) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
I. FACTS
On July 25, 2023, Plaintiff propounded Requests for Admission (“RFAs”) upon
Defendant. (Ex. 1.)
On August 25, 2023, defense counsel responded to the RFAs 3 days late (Ex. 2), which is
the subject of a Motion for Order Deeming its Requests for Admissions Admitted filed on
September 7, 2023, on which the Court has not yet ruled.
Defendant’s Responses failed to adhere to the parameters of Civ.R. 36(A)(2), and as a
result, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a good faith discovery dispute letter to Defendant’s attorney on
August 28, 2023 (Ex. 3), and again on October 22, 2023 (Ex. 4), asking him to cure the defects
in his RFA Responses.
To this date, counsel for Defendant has not cured those defects, or even bother to respond
to either of Plaintiff’s counsel’s letters.
II. SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES
A. RFA no. 6
Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ
RFA no. 6 states:
“Admit or deny that the document attached hereto as Ex. 1 is a true and accurate
copy of the fee agreement you signed with Caryn Groedel & Associates Co., LPA
(“CG&A”) on or about January 23 2023.”
Defendant responded:
“Admit that it was the legal service agreement that I signed but was later
terminated and cancelled by you.”
Argument: The RFA does not reference termination or cancellation of the
contract. Thus, good faith did not require Defendant to qualify his answer, or that he deny only
part of it. Thus, Defendant’s insertion of the words “but was later terminated and cancelled by
you” violates Civ.R. 36, and Plaintiff requests that it be stricken.
B. RFA no. 14
RFA no. 14 states:
“Admit or deny that you stated, in an email to attorney Groedel dated March 18,
2023, that you were looking for an attorney to litigate.”
Defendant responded:
“Deny, Defendant requested names of attorneys that would litigate in a
March 10, 2023 email, if necessary, because of Plaintiff’s statement
that she would not litigate.”
Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the requested
admission, and he added superfluous language (“if necessary, because of Plaintiff’s statement
that she would not litigate”) that was not necessary. Defendant qualified his Response in
violation of Civ.R. 36. Plaintiff requests the superfluous language be stricken.
C. RFA no. 16
RFA No. 16 states:
“Admit or deny that, at no time prior to the April 4 OCRC mediation,
did you ask Ms. Groedel for a new fee agreement for mediation purposes.”
Defendant responded:
Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ
“Admit, Defendant had no reason to request a new legal service contract as
Defendant had no reason to believe that Plaintiff had decided to continue to
represent him.”
Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the
requested admission. He unnecessarily added superfluous, qualifying language (“Defendant had
no reason to request a new legal service contract as Defendant had no reason to believe that
Plaintiff had decided to continue to represent him.”), which violates Civ.R. 36. Plaintiff requests
that it be stricken.
D. RFA no. 17
RFA No. 17 states:
“Admit or deny that, at no time after February 23, 2023, did you inquire as to
whether Plaintiff’s representation of you at the OCRC mediation would be on
terms different from the fee agreement you signed on January 23, 2023.”
Defendant responded:
“Defendant Admits he had no reason to believe Plaintiff would “represent” him in
the OCRC mediation since she never confirmed that she had wrapped up her other
cases allowing her the time to participate and never reached out in any way to
discuss prior to the mediation call.”
Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the requested
admission. The RFA asks a simple yes or no question, which Defendant simply refused to
answer. Plaintiff requests the Court deem this RFA admitted, or compel Defendant to provide a
straightforward unqualified response.
E. RFA no. 20
RFA No. 20 states:
“Admit or deny that Plaintiff recommended to you that you revise the
language in your OCRC Charge of Discrimination.”
Defendant responded:
“Admit, that Plaintiff responded to Defendant in a March 8, 2023 e-mail
that his response was inadequate and he should redo the entire thing.”
Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ
Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the requested
admission. The RFA asks a simple yes or no question, which Defendant simply refused to
answer. Plaintiff requests the Court deem this RFA admitted, or compel Defendant to provide a
simple unqualified response.
F. RFA no. 21
RFA No. 21 states:
“Admit or deny that Plaintiff suggested to you that you provide the OCRC
with documents pertaining to your employment.”
Defendant responded:
“Admit, however, at that time, Defendant had already gathered employment
documents and submitted to OCRC on his own.”
Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the requested
admission. He unnecessarily added superfluous, qualifying language (“however, at that time,
Defendant had already gathered employment documents and submitted to OCRC on his own.”)
in violation of Civ.R. 36. Plaintiff requests that it be stricken.
G. RFA no. 22
RFA No. 22 states:
“Admit or deny that Plaintiff counseled/advised you on your communications
with the OCRC investigator.”
Defendant responded:
“Admit, but only to the extent of recommending an edit for length to
Defendant’s self-prepared responses.”
Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the
requested admission. He unnecessarily added superfluous, qualifying language (“but only to the
extent of recommending an edit for length to Defendant’s self-prepared responses”), which
violates Civ.R. 36. Plaintiff requests that it be stricken.
Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ
H. RFA no. 23
RFA No. 23 states:
“Admit or deny that on March 17, 2023, Plaintiff informed you that the OCRC
facilitated mediation was scheduled for April 4, 2023.”
Defendant responded:
“Admit, Plaintiff forwarded Defendant an e-mail that he had already received
directly from OCRC.”
Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the
requested admission. He unnecessarily added superfluous, qualifying language (“Plaintiff
forwarded Defendant an e-mail that he had already received directly from OCRC.”), which
violates Civ.R. 36. Plaintiff requests that it be stricken.
I. RFA no. 24
RFA No. 24 states:
“Admit or deny that Caryn M. Groedel attended, and represented you in,
the April 4, 2023 OCRC-facilitated mediation.
Defendant responded:
“Admit Groedel attended the mediation, although she had not informed Defendant
that she intended on appearing, nor did she initiate any discussion of facts or
strategy with Defendant prior to the call.”
Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the
requested admission. He unnecessarily added superfluous, qualifying language (“although she
had not informed Defendant that she intended on appearing, nor did she initiate any discussion of
facts or strategy with Defendant prior to the call.”), which violates Civ.R. 36. Plaintiff requests
that it be stricken.
J. RFA No. 28
RFA No. 28 states:
Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ
“Admit or deny that, at no time between January 1, 2023 and April 4, 2023, did
you express any problem, issue, or concern to Plaintiff regarding the January 23,
2023 fee agreement you had signed with Plaintiff.”
Defendant responded:
“Admit. There was no need to discuss a fee agreement for a previously
terminated and never renewed attorney client relationship.”
Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the
requested admission. He unnecessarily added superfluous, qualifying language (“There was no
need to discuss a fee agreement for a previously terminated and never renewed attorney client
relationship.”), which violates Civ.R. 36. Plaintiff requests that it be stricken.
K. RFA No. 33
RFA No. 33 states:
“Admit or deny that, at no time prior to your receipt of the Disbursement
Statement on April 4, 2023, did you express to Plaintiff any concerns about the
fee it would receive as a result of any settlement it procured on your behalf.”
Defendant responded:
“Admit. There was no need to express concern over a terminated fee agreement.”
Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the requested
admission. He unnecessarily added superfluous, qualifying language (“There was no need to
express concern over a terminated fee agreement”), which violates Civ.R. 36. Plaintiff requests
that it be stricken.
L. RFA No. 37
RFA No. 37 states:
“Admit or deny that you have failed and refused to authorize OHH1, LLC dba
Honda of Cleveland Heights or its counsel for Honda of Cleveland Heights to
release 40% of the settlement sum to CG&A.”
Defendant responded:
“Admit that Plaintiff is not entitled to 40% of the settlement sum as the prior legal
service contract was terminated by Plaintiff on Feb. 23, 2023. Consequently, the
Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ
matter is before the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association’s Fee Dispute
program.”
Argument: Defendant simply failed to admit or deny this very simple RFA. Plaintiff
requests that it be deemed admitted.
M. RFA No. 38
RFA No. 38 states:
“Admit or deny that you have failed and refused to authorize OHH1, LLC dba
Honda of Cleveland Heights or its counsel for Honda of Cleveland Heights to
release 35% of the settlement sum to CG&A.”
Defendant responded:
“Admit that Plaintiff is not entitled to 35% of the settlement sum as the prior legal
service contract was terminated by Plaintiff on Feb. 23, 2023. Consequently, the
matter is before the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association’s Fee Dispute
program.”
Argument: Defendant simply failed to admit or deny this very simple RFA. Plaintiff
requests that it be deemed admitted.
N. RFA No. 39
RFA No. 29 states:
“Admit or deny that you have failed and refused to authorize OHH1, LLC dba
Honda of Cleveland Heights or its counsel for Honda of Cleveland Heights to
release 30% of the settlement sum to CG&A.”
Defendant responded:
“Admit that Plaintiff is not entitled to 30% of the settlement sum as the prior legal
service contract was terminated by Plaintiff on Feb. 23, 2023. Consequently, the
matter is before the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association’s Fee Dispute
program.”
Argument: Defendant simply failed to admit or deny this very simple RFA. Plaintiff
requests that it be deemed admitted.
O. RFA No. 40
RFA No. 40 states:
Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ
“Admit or deny that, at no time between the date you signed your 1/23/23 fee
agreement with Plaintiff, and the OCRC mediation on April 4, 4023, did you
ask Plaintiff to 8 reduce the 40% contingency fee set forth in the fee agreement
you signed with Plaintiff on January 23, 2023.
Defendant responded:
“Admit after Plaintiff terminated the legal service contract in February 2023, there
was fee agreement to asked to be reduced.”
Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the requested
admission. He unnecessarily added superfluous, qualifying language (“There was fee agreement
to asked to be reduced”), which violates Civ.R. 36. Plaintiff requests that it be stricken.
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
Civ.R. 36(A)(2) states:
If objection is made [to a Request for Admission], the reasons therefor shall be
stated. The answer shall specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why
the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. A denial shall fairly
meet the substance of the requested admission, and when good faith requires that a
party qualify his or her answer, or deny only a part of the matter of which an
admission is requested, the party shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or
deny the remainder. An answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge
as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless the party states that the party has made
reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by the party is
insufficient to enable the party to admit or deny. A party who considers that a matter of
which an admission has been requested presents a genuine issue for trial may not, on that
ground alone, object to the request; the party may, subject to the provisions of Civ.R.
37(C), deny the matter or set forth reasons why the party cannot admit or deny it.
(Emphasis added.)
IV. CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH
Undersigned counsel hereby certifies that she made two (2) good faith efforts to
resolve this matter without the Court’s intervention - one on August 28, 2023 (Ex. 3), and the
second on October 22, 2023 (Ex. 4) - but defense counsel failed to provide a substantive
response to either letter.
V. CONCLUSION
Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant respectfully request that their
Motion be granted, and that the Court grant the following relief:
• Strike the superfluous language in Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's Requests
for Admission nos. 6, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 33, and 40;
• Deem admitted Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission nos. 37, 38, and 39; and
• Deem admitted or compel Defendant to provide responses to RFAs 17 and 20 that
meet the requirements of Civ.R. 36(A)(2).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Caryn M. Groedel_________
Caryn M. Groedel (0060131)
cgroedel@groedel-law.com
Caryn Groedel & Associates Co., LPA
208 Spriggel Drive
Munroe Falls, OH 44262
1291 SW Mulberry Way
Boca Raton, FL 33486
Phone: 440-230-3808
Fax: 440-664-2478
Counsel for Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that the forgoing was filed electronically this 2nd day of
November, 2023. Notice of this filing will be sent by the Court’s electronic filing system.
Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.
/s/ Caryn M. Groedel
Caryn M. Groedel
Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
CARYN GROEDEL & ASSOCIATES ) CASE NO. CV23978501
)
Plaintiff ) JUDGE WILLIAM F.B. VODREY
)
vs. ) PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR
) ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT
RON LARAWAY )
)
Defendant )
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
1. Pursuant to Rules 33, 34, and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in
answering the following Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests
for Admission (collectively referred to herein as “discovery requests”), you are to furnish all
information available to you, or subject to your reasonable inquiry, including information in the
possession, control, and/or custody of your agents, employees, attorneys, and other persons
directly or indirectly employed by, or connected with, you, and anyone else otherwise subject to
your control, and to serve your answers, separately and fully in writing, under oath, upon Caryn
M. Groedel, Esq., c/o Caryn Groedel & Associates Co. LPA, 208 Spriggel Drive, Munroe Falls,
Ohio 44262, within the time set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. In answering these discovery requests, you must make a diligent search of records
and other papers and materials in your possession or available to you and/or your representatives.
If you are unable to fully answer any of these discovery requests, you must answer them as fully
as possible, and specify the reason(s) for your inability to answer the remainder.
3. If information requested is not known or is not reasonably available in the precise
form or scope requested or for the specific date or period specified, set forth the best information
you have, along with an explanation of why your response is not completely responsive to the
discovery request, and identify all documents or sources from which more complete information
is obtainable.
4. Whenever an Interrogatory or Document Request calls for information with
respect to "each" one of a particular type of occurrence, communication, or other matter for
which more than one exists, you must identify separately, and in chronological order, each
instance of the occurrences, communications, or other matters referred to. If you exercise your
right under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34 to produce business records,
identify each record in sufficient detail to enable Plaintiff to locate and identify, as readily
as Defendant, the records from which the answer may be ascertained. In other words, you
shall identify by Bates number or otherwise the specific documents you are producing in lieu of a
written response, and state which documents correspond to each discovery request.
. .HE
. Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ
1
5. If you believe any of these discovery requests calls for information subject to a
claim of confidentiality, trade secret, privilege, or work product, answer as much of the
discovery request as does not, in your opinion, request confidential, secret, privileged, or work
product information, and identify each document and communication you are withholding
with sufficient specificity to enable Plaintiff to understand the nature of your claim and
exercise his right to challenge each such claim. You must also state the date, author, recipients,
and general subject matter of each such document.
6. If you believe any of these discovery requests are objectionable, answer as much
of each as is not, in your opinion, objectionable, and describe with specificity the grounds for
each of your objections.
7. You are instructed to timely supplement your responses to all of the following
discovery requests, especially those requesting the identification of persons having knowledge of
discoverable matters. Without being requested to do so, you must also amend any responses
when it is discovered to be no longer true. A failure to supplement is, in substance, a knowing
concealment.
8. When asked to "identify", or "for the identity" of, any natural person, set forth
such person’s: (i) full name; (ii) present or last known home and work address; (iii) last known
home, work, and cell phone numbers; (iv) date of birth; and (v) position and business affiliation.
9. When asked to "identify", or "for the identity" of, any entity other than a natural
person, set forth its: (i) full name or title; (ii) address, (iii) telephone number; and (iv) the identity
of all persons who acted, or who authorized another to act, on its behalf in connection with the
matters referred to.
10. If you know of a responsive document that it is not in your custody or control,
state: (i) its date and general type of category (e.g., letter, contract, memorandum); (ii) the
identity of its author; (iii) the identity of each addressee and other distributee to whom the
document was transmitted; (iv) the identity of its last known location or custodian; (v) the
reason(s) for your inability to produce or locate such document; and (vi) the identity of the
person or entity to whom custody or possession was given.
11. When asked to "identify", or "for the identity" of, an oral communication, set
forth: (i) the date and place thereof or, in the case of a telephone conversation, where the parties
thereto were located at the time of the communication; (ii) the identity of each person who
participated in, or was present during, the communication; and (iii) identify, in accordance with
the prior requirements hereof, all documents that were prepared as a consequence of, or that
contain information relative to, the subject of the oral communication.
12. When a discovery request refers to an action or event, "describe in detail", and/or
“describe, in detail”, you shall provide a description of the action, including when, where, and
how it occurred, and who was present and/or participated in the action or event.
13. When a discovery request refers to a document or other written or oral
communication, "describe in detail", and/or “describe, in detail”, you shall state: (i) the type of
document or other communication; (ii) the date it was created; (iii) the identity of all persons
Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ
2
involved creating the document or communication; and (iv) the present location of the document
or communication.
DEFINITIONS
1. “Plaintiff” refers to Caryn M. Groedel, Esq. and/or Caryn Groedel & Associates
Co., LPA, its officers, trustees, employees, agents, attorneys, experts, investigators, and/or other
persons acting, and/or purporting to act, on its behalf.
2. “Defendant” refers to Ronald (a/k/a Ron) Laraway.
3. "Document" and "documents" refer to any printed, written, taped, recorded,
graphic, computerized printout, or other tangible matter, from whatever source, however
produced or reproduced, whether in draft or otherwise, whether sent or received, or neither,
including, but not limited to, the original, a copy (if the original is not available), and all
nonidentical copies (whether different from the original because of notes made on or attached to
such copy or otherwise), and/or any and all writings, correspondence, letters, telegrams, cables,
contracts, proposals, agreements, minutes, acknowledgments, notes, memoranda, analyses,
projections, work papers, books, forecasts or appraisals, papers, records, reports, diaries,
statements, questionnaires, schedules, computer programs or data, books of account, calendars,
graphs, charts, transcripts, tapes, transcripts or records, photographs, pictures or film, ledgers,
registers, worksheets, summaries, digests, financial statements, and all other information or data,
records, or compilations, including all underlying supporting or preparatory material now in your
possession, custody, or control, or available to you, your counsel, accountants, agents,
representatives, and/or associates. "Document" and "documents" specifically includes documents
maintained in a desk, at home, at one or more County Commissioners’ offices, or elsewhere.
4. "Communication" and "communicate" include information relating to oral
communications and "documents" (as defined above), regardless of whether such document, or
the information contained therein, was transmitted by its author to any other person.
5. "Meeting" or "meetings" means any meeting of any agent, employee, trustee,
director, board member, and/or representative of County Commissioners, or combination of
groupings of such agents, employees, trustees, directors, board members, and/or representatives,
and includes tape, audio, and/or video recordings, and/or written or other transcriptions of any
such meetings reflecting the particular date, time, and/or substance of discussion at each such
meeting.
6. "You" and "your" refers to Ronald / Ron Laraway.
7. "Person" includes a natural person, partnership, firm, corporation, and any other
kind of business or legal entity, its agents, and/or employees.
8. “Complaint” means lawsuit, administrative charge or proceeding, arbitration,
mediation, grievance, and/or other formal or informal dispute resolution procedure, and includes
all formal and informal charges, complaints, and/or report procedures created, maintained, and/or
used by the County Commissioners.
Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ
3
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
1. Admit or deny that Plaintiff represented you in 2002, 2003, and 2004, in the case
of Ronald J. Laraway v. John Lance Ford, et al., Case No. CV-02-466801 in the Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas.
RESPONSE:
2. Admit or deny that the case of Ronald J. Laraway v. John Lance Ford, et al.,
Case No. CV-02-466801 in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, went to trial in 2004,
and attorney Caryn M. Groedel represented you in that trial.
RESPONSE:
3. Admit or deny that, on August 31, 2004, Judge Timothy McCormick entered
judgment in your favor in the amount of $595,000 in the case of Ronald J. Laraway v. John
Lance Ford, et al., Case No. CV-02-466801 in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.
RESPONSE:
4. Admit or deny that you retained Plaintiff or about October 12, 2022, to represent
you in a potential employment claim against Auto Services Unlimited and/or Honda of
Cleveland Heights.
RESPONSE:
5. Admit that you were employed by Honda of Cleveland Heights for one month
-- from April 25, 2022 to May 24, 2022.
RESPONSE:
6. Admit or deny that the document attached hereto as Ex. 1 is a true and accurate
copy of the fee agreement you signed with Caryn Groedel & Associates Co., LPA (“CG&A”) on
or about January 23 2023.
RESPONSE:
7. Admit or deny that Ex. 1 requires you to pay Defendant a $2,000 retainer, costs,
and 40% of the value of any recovery CG&A obtained on your behalf.
RESPONSE:
8. Admit or deny that on February 23, 2023, Plaintiff terminated its attorney-client
relationship with you.
RESPONSE:
9. Admit or deny that the document attached hereto as Ex. 2 is a true and accurate
copy of an email you transmitted to Caryn M. Groedel, Esq. on February 24, 2023.
RESPONSE:
10. Admit or deny that, in your February 24, 2023 email to attorney Caryn M.
Groedel, you twice asked attorney Groedel to reconsider her decision to end her attorney-client
relationship with you.
RESPONSE:
Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ
4
11. Admit or deny that, in your February 24, 2023 email to attorney Groedel, you
stated, “I don’t trust anyone but you.”
RESPONSE:
12. Admit or deny that, in your February 24, 2023 email to attorney Groedel, you
stated, among other things, “I need your help.”
RESPONSE:
13. Admit or deny that, on Friday, March 17, 2023, attorney Groedel sent you an
email stating that mediation with the OCRC was scheduled for 8:30 AM on April 4, and that
your attendance was required.
RESPONSE:
14. Admit or deny that you stated, in an email to attorney Groedel dated March 18,
2023, that you were looking for an attorney to litigate.
RESPONSE:
15. Admit or deny that attorney Groedel told you by email dated Sunday, March 19,
2023, that you did not need to hire an attorney [for litigation] unless mediation was unsuccessful,
and that she would represent you [in litigation] if she was able to wrap up a couple of her other
cases.
RESPONSE:
13. Admit or deny that, after February 23, 2023, you entered into no other fee
agreements with Plaintiff.
RESPONSE:
14. Admit or deny that Ex. 3 attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of a March
19, 2023 email you transmitted to attorney Groedel.
RESPONSE:
15. Admit or deny that Ex. 4 attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of an email
string between you and attorney Groedel containing emails between March 17, 2023 and March
20, 2023.
RESPONSE:
16. Admit or deny that, at no time prior to the April 4 OCRC mediation, did you ask
Ms. Groedel for a new fee agreement for mediation purposes.
RESPONSE:
17. Admit or deny that, at no time after February 23, 2023, did you inquire as to
whether Plaintiff’s representation of you at the OCRC mediation would be on terms different
from the fee agreement you signed on January 23, 2023.
RESPONSE:
18. Admit or deny that, prior to the OCRC mediation, Plaintiff guided you through
the OCRC process.
RESPONSE:
Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ
5
19. Admit or deny that Plaintiff instructed you on what you should say on your
OCRC Charge form.
RESPONSE:
20. Admit or deny that Plaintiff recommended to you that you revise the language in
your OCRC Charge of Discrimination.
RESPONSE:
21. Admit or deny that Plaintiff suggested to you that you provide OCRC with
documents pertaining to your employment.
RESPONSE:
22. Admit or deny that Plaintiff counseled/advised you on your communications with
the OCRC investigator.
RESPONSE:
23. Admit or deny that on March 17, 2023, Plaintiff informed you that the OCRC-
facilitated mediation was scheduled for April 4, 2023.
RESPONSE:
24. Admit or deny that Caryn M. Groedel attended, and represented you in, the April
4, 2023 OCRC-facilitated mediation.
RESPONSE:
25. Admit or deny that, as a result of the April 4, 2023 OCRC mediation, OHH1,
LLC d/b/a Honda of Cleveland Heights entered into a settlement agreement with you for the sum
of $85,000.
RESPONSE:
26. Admit or deny that Plaintiff negotiated the terms and conditions for the settlement
agreement between you and OHH1, LLC d/b/a Honda of Cleveland Heights.
RESPONSE:
27. Admit or deny that Plaintiff included you in the negotiations of the terms and the
conditions of the settlement agreement between you and OHH1, LLC d/b/a Honda of Cleveland
Heights.
RESPONSE:
28. Admit or deny that, at no time between January 1, 2023 and April 4, 2023, did
you express any problem, issue, or concern to Plaintiff regarding the January 23, 2023 fee
agreement you had signed with Plaintiff.
RESPONSE:
29. Admit or deny that Plaintiff emailed a Disbursement Statement to you on
April 4, 2023.
RESPONSE:
30. Admit or deny that Ex. 5 attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of the April
4, 2023 email attorney Groedel sent you transmitting a Disbursement Statement.
Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ
6
RESPONSE:
Admit or deny that the document attached to Ex. 5 is a true and accurate copy of the
Disbursement Statement attorney Groedel sent you by email on April 4, 2023.
31. Admit or deny that you refused to sign the Disbursement Statement attorney
Groedel emailed you on April 4, 2023.
RESPONSE:
32. Admit or deny that Plaintiff transmitted a W-9 form to you on April 4, 2023.
RESPONSE:
33. Admit or deny that, at no time prior to your receipt of the Disbursement Statement
on April 4, 2023, did you express to Plaintiff any concerns about the fee it would receive as a
result of any settlement it procured on your behalf.
RESPONSE:
34. Admit that, in April 2023, you received a settlement check in the amount of
$53,000 from OHH1, LLC dba Honda of Cleveland Heights or one of its attorneys.
RESPONSE:
35. Admit or deny that the $53,000 settlement check you received from OHH1, LLC
dba Honda of Cleveland Heights represents 60% of the total settlement between you and OHH1,
LLC d/b/a Honda of Cleveland Heights.
RESPONSE:
36. Admit or deny that, as a result of your failure to sign the Disbursement Statement
Plaintiff sent you, counsel for OHH1, LLC dba Honda of Cleveland Heights transmitted an email
to you, attorney Groedel, and Ms. Gina Curry at the OCRC, stating that she was going to pay you
60% of the settlement amount and place the remaining settlement funds in escrow.
RESPONSE:
37. Admit or deny that you have failed and refused to authorize OHH1, LLC dba
Honda of Cleveland Heights or its counsel for Honda of Cleveland Heights to release 40% of the
settlement sum to CG&A.
RESPONSE:
38. Admit or deny that you have failed and refused to authorize OHH1, LLC dba
Honda of Cleveland Heights or its counsel for Honda of Cleveland Heights to release 35% of the
settlement sum to CG&A.
RESPONSE:
39. Admit or deny that you have failed and refused to authorize OHH1, LLC dba
Honda of Cleveland Heights or its counsel for Honda of Cleveland Heights to release 30% of the
settlement sum to CG&A.
RESPONSE:
40. Admit or deny that, at no time between the date you signed your 1/23/23 fee
agreement with Plaintiff, and the OCRC mediation on April 4, 4023, did you ask Plaintiff to
Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ
7
reduce the 40% contingency fee set forth in the fee agreement you signed with Plaintiff on
January 23, 2023.
RESPONSE:
/s/ Caryn M. Groedel_________
Caryn M. Groedel (0060131)
CARYN GROEDEL & ASSOCIATES CO., LPA
208 Spriggel Drive
Munroe Falls, OH 44262
Phone: (440) 230-3808
(440) 207-9557
Fax: (440) 664-25478
cgroedel@groedel-law.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on this 25th day of July, 2023, a copy of the foregoing Requests for
Admission were emailed in both Word and PDF format to Defendant Ron Laraway at
tdpack10@aol.com and mailed via U.S. regular mail.
/s/ Caryn M. Groedel_________
Caryn M. Groedel
Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ
8
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
CARYN GROEDEL & ASSOCIATES ) CASE NO. CV 23 978501
)
Plaintiff ) JUDGE WILLIAM F.B. VODREY
)
vs. ) DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO
) PLAINTIFF’S RQUESTS FOR
RON LARAWAY ) ADMISSIONS
)
Defendant )
Now comes the Defendant Ron Laraway, by and through counsel, and hereby submits his
responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
1. Admit or deny that Plaintiff represented you in 2002, 2003, and 2004, in the case
of Ronald J. Laraway v. John Lance Ford, et al., Case No. CV-02-466801 in the Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas.
RESPONSE: Admit.
2. Admit or deny that the case of Ronald J. Laraway v. John Lance Ford, et al.,
Case No. CV-02-466801 in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, went to trial in 2004,
and attorney Caryn M. Groedel represented you in that trial.
RESPONSE: Admit.
3. Admit or deny that, on August 31, 2004, Judge Timothy McCormick entered
judgment in your favor in the amount of $595,000 in the case of Ronald J. Laraway v. John
Lance Ford, et al., Case No. CV-02-466801 in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.
RESPONSE: Deny. The judgment entered was for $595,200.
4. Admit or deny that you retained Plaintiff or about October 12, 2022, to represent
you in a potential employment claim against Auto Services Unlimited and/or Honda of
Cleveland Heights.
RESPONSE: Admit.
5. Admit that you were employed by Honda of Cleveland Heights for one month -
from April 25, 2022 to May 24, 2022.
RESPONSE: Deny. The termination was May 27, 2022.
6. Admit or deny that the document attached hereto as Ex. 1 is a true and accurate
copy of the fee agreement you signed with Caryn Groedel & Associates Co., LPA (“CG&A”) on
or about January 23 2023.
RESPONSE: Admit that it was the legal service agreement that I signed but was later
terminated and cancelled by you.
7. Admit or deny that Ex. 1 requires you to pay Defendant a $2,000 retainer, costs,
and 40% of the value of any recovery CG&A obtained on your behalf.
RESPONSE: Admit the legal service contract that was terminated in February 2023 contained
those terms but did not require me to pay Defendant.
8. Admit or deny that on February 23, 2023, Plaintiff terminated its attorney-client
relationship with you.
RESPONSE: Admit.
9. Admit or deny that the document attached hereto as Ex. 2 is a true and accurate
copy of an email you transmitted to Caryn M. Groedel, Esq. on February 24, 2023.
RESPONSE: Admit.
10. Admit or deny that, in your February 24, 2023 email to attorney Caryn M.
Groedel, you twice asked attorney Groedel to reconsider her decision to end her attorney-clien
Preview
Motion No. 5128844 NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Court of Common Pleas MOTION TO... November 2,2023 16:53 By: CARYN M. GROEDEL 0060131 Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 CARYN GROEDEL & ASSOCIATES CO LPA CV 23 978501 vs. Judge: WILLIAM EB.VODREY RON LARAWAY Pages Filed: 32 Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO CARYN GROEDEL & ASSOCIATES ) CASE NO. CV-23-978501 CO., LPA ) ) JUDGE WILLIAM F.B. VODREY Plaintiff ) ) PLAINTIFF AND THIRD-PARTY vs. ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ) STRIKE SOME OF DEFENDANT’S RONALD LARAWAY ) RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S ) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, OR Defendant ) IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION ) TO DEEM RFAs ADMITTED ) AND/OR MOTION TO COMPEL ) RESPONSES THAT COMPLY ) WITH THE CIVIL RULES Plaintiff, Caryn Groedel & Associates Co., LPA, and third-party Defendant, Caryn M. Groedel, hereby move this Honorable Court to strike the superfluous additions to Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission nos. 6, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 33 and 40, as Defendant failed to follow the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure - specifically, Civ.R. 36(A)(2) - by asserting denials that do not “fairly meet the substance of the requested admission”, and by qualifying his response where qualifications were not requested or required. Defendant also improperly responded to Plaintiff’s RFAs 17, 20,37, 38, and 39. The reasons for this motion, and the relief requested, herein, are more fully described in the Memorandum attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Caryn M. Groedel_________ Caryn M. Groedel (0060131) cgroedel@groedel-law.com Caryn Groedel & Associates Co., LPA 208 Spriggel Drive Munroe Falls, OH 44262 1291 SW Mulberry Way Boca Raton, FL 33486 Phone: 440-230-3808 Fax: 440-664-2478 Counsel for Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO CARYN GROEDEL & ASSOCIATES ) CASE NO. CV-23-978501 CO., LPA ) ) JUDGE WILLIAM F.B. VODREY Plaintiff ) ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ) PLAINTIFF’S AND THIRD-PARTY vs. ) DEFENDANTS MOTION TO ) STRIKE SOME OF DEFENDANT’S RONALD LARAWAY ) RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S ) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, OR Defendant ) IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION ) TO COMPEL RESPONSES THAT ) COMPLY WITH THE OHIO RLES ) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I. FACTS On July 25, 2023, Plaintiff propounded Requests for Admission (“RFAs”) upon Defendant. (Ex. 1.) On August 25, 2023, defense counsel responded to the RFAs 3 days late (Ex. 2), which is the subject of a Motion for Order Deeming its Requests for Admissions Admitted filed on September 7, 2023, on which the Court has not yet ruled. Defendant’s Responses failed to adhere to the parameters of Civ.R. 36(A)(2), and as a result, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a good faith discovery dispute letter to Defendant’s attorney on August 28, 2023 (Ex. 3), and again on October 22, 2023 (Ex. 4), asking him to cure the defects in his RFA Responses. To this date, counsel for Defendant has not cured those defects, or even bother to respond to either of Plaintiff’s counsel’s letters. II. SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES A. RFA no. 6 Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ RFA no. 6 states: “Admit or deny that the document attached hereto as Ex. 1 is a true and accurate copy of the fee agreement you signed with Caryn Groedel & Associates Co., LPA (“CG&A”) on or about January 23 2023.” Defendant responded: “Admit that it was the legal service agreement that I signed but was later terminated and cancelled by you.” Argument: The RFA does not reference termination or cancellation of the contract. Thus, good faith did not require Defendant to qualify his answer, or that he deny only part of it. Thus, Defendant’s insertion of the words “but was later terminated and cancelled by you” violates Civ.R. 36, and Plaintiff requests that it be stricken. B. RFA no. 14 RFA no. 14 states: “Admit or deny that you stated, in an email to attorney Groedel dated March 18, 2023, that you were looking for an attorney to litigate.” Defendant responded: “Deny, Defendant requested names of attorneys that would litigate in a March 10, 2023 email, if necessary, because of Plaintiff’s statement that she would not litigate.” Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and he added superfluous language (“if necessary, because of Plaintiff’s statement that she would not litigate”) that was not necessary. Defendant qualified his Response in violation of Civ.R. 36. Plaintiff requests the superfluous language be stricken. C. RFA no. 16 RFA No. 16 states: “Admit or deny that, at no time prior to the April 4 OCRC mediation, did you ask Ms. Groedel for a new fee agreement for mediation purposes.” Defendant responded: Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ “Admit, Defendant had no reason to request a new legal service contract as Defendant had no reason to believe that Plaintiff had decided to continue to represent him.” Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the requested admission. He unnecessarily added superfluous, qualifying language (“Defendant had no reason to request a new legal service contract as Defendant had no reason to believe that Plaintiff had decided to continue to represent him.”), which violates Civ.R. 36. Plaintiff requests that it be stricken. D. RFA no. 17 RFA No. 17 states: “Admit or deny that, at no time after February 23, 2023, did you inquire as to whether Plaintiff’s representation of you at the OCRC mediation would be on terms different from the fee agreement you signed on January 23, 2023.” Defendant responded: “Defendant Admits he had no reason to believe Plaintiff would “represent” him in the OCRC mediation since she never confirmed that she had wrapped up her other cases allowing her the time to participate and never reached out in any way to discuss prior to the mediation call.” Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the requested admission. The RFA asks a simple yes or no question, which Defendant simply refused to answer. Plaintiff requests the Court deem this RFA admitted, or compel Defendant to provide a straightforward unqualified response. E. RFA no. 20 RFA No. 20 states: “Admit or deny that Plaintiff recommended to you that you revise the language in your OCRC Charge of Discrimination.” Defendant responded: “Admit, that Plaintiff responded to Defendant in a March 8, 2023 e-mail that his response was inadequate and he should redo the entire thing.” Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the requested admission. The RFA asks a simple yes or no question, which Defendant simply refused to answer. Plaintiff requests the Court deem this RFA admitted, or compel Defendant to provide a simple unqualified response. F. RFA no. 21 RFA No. 21 states: “Admit or deny that Plaintiff suggested to you that you provide the OCRC with documents pertaining to your employment.” Defendant responded: “Admit, however, at that time, Defendant had already gathered employment documents and submitted to OCRC on his own.” Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the requested admission. He unnecessarily added superfluous, qualifying language (“however, at that time, Defendant had already gathered employment documents and submitted to OCRC on his own.”) in violation of Civ.R. 36. Plaintiff requests that it be stricken. G. RFA no. 22 RFA No. 22 states: “Admit or deny that Plaintiff counseled/advised you on your communications with the OCRC investigator.” Defendant responded: “Admit, but only to the extent of recommending an edit for length to Defendant’s self-prepared responses.” Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the requested admission. He unnecessarily added superfluous, qualifying language (“but only to the extent of recommending an edit for length to Defendant’s self-prepared responses”), which violates Civ.R. 36. Plaintiff requests that it be stricken. Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ H. RFA no. 23 RFA No. 23 states: “Admit or deny that on March 17, 2023, Plaintiff informed you that the OCRC facilitated mediation was scheduled for April 4, 2023.” Defendant responded: “Admit, Plaintiff forwarded Defendant an e-mail that he had already received directly from OCRC.” Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the requested admission. He unnecessarily added superfluous, qualifying language (“Plaintiff forwarded Defendant an e-mail that he had already received directly from OCRC.”), which violates Civ.R. 36. Plaintiff requests that it be stricken. I. RFA no. 24 RFA No. 24 states: “Admit or deny that Caryn M. Groedel attended, and represented you in, the April 4, 2023 OCRC-facilitated mediation. Defendant responded: “Admit Groedel attended the mediation, although she had not informed Defendant that she intended on appearing, nor did she initiate any discussion of facts or strategy with Defendant prior to the call.” Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the requested admission. He unnecessarily added superfluous, qualifying language (“although she had not informed Defendant that she intended on appearing, nor did she initiate any discussion of facts or strategy with Defendant prior to the call.”), which violates Civ.R. 36. Plaintiff requests that it be stricken. J. RFA No. 28 RFA No. 28 states: Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ “Admit or deny that, at no time between January 1, 2023 and April 4, 2023, did you express any problem, issue, or concern to Plaintiff regarding the January 23, 2023 fee agreement you had signed with Plaintiff.” Defendant responded: “Admit. There was no need to discuss a fee agreement for a previously terminated and never renewed attorney client relationship.” Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the requested admission. He unnecessarily added superfluous, qualifying language (“There was no need to discuss a fee agreement for a previously terminated and never renewed attorney client relationship.”), which violates Civ.R. 36. Plaintiff requests that it be stricken. K. RFA No. 33 RFA No. 33 states: “Admit or deny that, at no time prior to your receipt of the Disbursement Statement on April 4, 2023, did you express to Plaintiff any concerns about the fee it would receive as a result of any settlement it procured on your behalf.” Defendant responded: “Admit. There was no need to express concern over a terminated fee agreement.” Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the requested admission. He unnecessarily added superfluous, qualifying language (“There was no need to express concern over a terminated fee agreement”), which violates Civ.R. 36. Plaintiff requests that it be stricken. L. RFA No. 37 RFA No. 37 states: “Admit or deny that you have failed and refused to authorize OHH1, LLC dba Honda of Cleveland Heights or its counsel for Honda of Cleveland Heights to release 40% of the settlement sum to CG&A.” Defendant responded: “Admit that Plaintiff is not entitled to 40% of the settlement sum as the prior legal service contract was terminated by Plaintiff on Feb. 23, 2023. Consequently, the Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ matter is before the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association’s Fee Dispute program.” Argument: Defendant simply failed to admit or deny this very simple RFA. Plaintiff requests that it be deemed admitted. M. RFA No. 38 RFA No. 38 states: “Admit or deny that you have failed and refused to authorize OHH1, LLC dba Honda of Cleveland Heights or its counsel for Honda of Cleveland Heights to release 35% of the settlement sum to CG&A.” Defendant responded: “Admit that Plaintiff is not entitled to 35% of the settlement sum as the prior legal service contract was terminated by Plaintiff on Feb. 23, 2023. Consequently, the matter is before the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association’s Fee Dispute program.” Argument: Defendant simply failed to admit or deny this very simple RFA. Plaintiff requests that it be deemed admitted. N. RFA No. 39 RFA No. 29 states: “Admit or deny that you have failed and refused to authorize OHH1, LLC dba Honda of Cleveland Heights or its counsel for Honda of Cleveland Heights to release 30% of the settlement sum to CG&A.” Defendant responded: “Admit that Plaintiff is not entitled to 30% of the settlement sum as the prior legal service contract was terminated by Plaintiff on Feb. 23, 2023. Consequently, the matter is before the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association’s Fee Dispute program.” Argument: Defendant simply failed to admit or deny this very simple RFA. Plaintiff requests that it be deemed admitted. O. RFA No. 40 RFA No. 40 states: Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ “Admit or deny that, at no time between the date you signed your 1/23/23 fee agreement with Plaintiff, and the OCRC mediation on April 4, 4023, did you ask Plaintiff to 8 reduce the 40% contingency fee set forth in the fee agreement you signed with Plaintiff on January 23, 2023. Defendant responded: “Admit after Plaintiff terminated the legal service contract in February 2023, there was fee agreement to asked to be reduced.” Argument: Defendant’s Response does not fairly meet the substance of the requested admission. He unnecessarily added superfluous, qualifying language (“There was fee agreement to asked to be reduced”), which violates Civ.R. 36. Plaintiff requests that it be stricken. III. LEGAL ARGUMENT Civ.R. 36(A)(2) states: If objection is made [to a Request for Admission], the reasons therefor shall be stated. The answer shall specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and when good faith requires that a party qualify his or her answer, or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, the party shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder. An answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless the party states that the party has made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by the party is insufficient to enable the party to admit or deny. A party who considers that a matter of which an admission has been requested presents a genuine issue for trial may not, on that ground alone, object to the request; the party may, subject to the provisions of Civ.R. 37(C), deny the matter or set forth reasons why the party cannot admit or deny it. (Emphasis added.) IV. CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH Undersigned counsel hereby certifies that she made two (2) good faith efforts to resolve this matter without the Court’s intervention - one on August 28, 2023 (Ex. 3), and the second on October 22, 2023 (Ex. 4) - but defense counsel failed to provide a substantive response to either letter. V. CONCLUSION Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant respectfully request that their Motion be granted, and that the Court grant the following relief: • Strike the superfluous language in Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission nos. 6, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 33, and 40; • Deem admitted Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission nos. 37, 38, and 39; and • Deem admitted or compel Defendant to provide responses to RFAs 17 and 20 that meet the requirements of Civ.R. 36(A)(2). Respectfully submitted, /s/ Caryn M. Groedel_________ Caryn M. Groedel (0060131) cgroedel@groedel-law.com Caryn Groedel & Associates Co., LPA 208 Spriggel Drive Munroe Falls, OH 44262 1291 SW Mulberry Way Boca Raton, FL 33486 Phone: 440-230-3808 Fax: 440-664-2478 Counsel for Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that the forgoing was filed electronically this 2nd day of November, 2023. Notice of this filing will be sent by the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system. /s/ Caryn M. Groedel Caryn M. Groedel Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO CARYN GROEDEL & ASSOCIATES ) CASE NO. CV23978501 ) Plaintiff ) JUDGE WILLIAM F.B. VODREY ) vs. ) PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR ) ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT RON LARAWAY ) ) Defendant ) GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 1. Pursuant to Rules 33, 34, and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in answering the following Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admission (collectively referred to herein as “discovery requests”), you are to furnish all information available to you, or subject to your reasonable inquiry, including information in the possession, control, and/or custody of your agents, employees, attorneys, and other persons directly or indirectly employed by, or connected with, you, and anyone else otherwise subject to your control, and to serve your answers, separately and fully in writing, under oath, upon Caryn M. Groedel, Esq., c/o Caryn Groedel & Associates Co. LPA, 208 Spriggel Drive, Munroe Falls, Ohio 44262, within the time set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. In answering these discovery requests, you must make a diligent search of records and other papers and materials in your possession or available to you and/or your representatives. If you are unable to fully answer any of these discovery requests, you must answer them as fully as possible, and specify the reason(s) for your inability to answer the remainder. 3. If information requested is not known or is not reasonably available in the precise form or scope requested or for the specific date or period specified, set forth the best information you have, along with an explanation of why your response is not completely responsive to the discovery request, and identify all documents or sources from which more complete information is obtainable. 4. Whenever an Interrogatory or Document Request calls for information with respect to "each" one of a particular type of occurrence, communication, or other matter for which more than one exists, you must identify separately, and in chronological order, each instance of the occurrences, communications, or other matters referred to. If you exercise your right under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34 to produce business records, identify each record in sufficient detail to enable Plaintiff to locate and identify, as readily as Defendant, the records from which the answer may be ascertained. In other words, you shall identify by Bates number or otherwise the specific documents you are producing in lieu of a written response, and state which documents correspond to each discovery request. . .HE . Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ 1 5. If you believe any of these discovery requests calls for information subject to a claim of confidentiality, trade secret, privilege, or work product, answer as much of the discovery request as does not, in your opinion, request confidential, secret, privileged, or work product information, and identify each document and communication you are withholding with sufficient specificity to enable Plaintiff to understand the nature of your claim and exercise his right to challenge each such claim. You must also state the date, author, recipients, and general subject matter of each such document. 6. If you believe any of these discovery requests are objectionable, answer as much of each as is not, in your opinion, objectionable, and describe with specificity the grounds for each of your objections. 7. You are instructed to timely supplement your responses to all of the following discovery requests, especially those requesting the identification of persons having knowledge of discoverable matters. Without being requested to do so, you must also amend any responses when it is discovered to be no longer true. A failure to supplement is, in substance, a knowing concealment. 8. When asked to "identify", or "for the identity" of, any natural person, set forth such person’s: (i) full name; (ii) present or last known home and work address; (iii) last known home, work, and cell phone numbers; (iv) date of birth; and (v) position and business affiliation. 9. When asked to "identify", or "for the identity" of, any entity other than a natural person, set forth its: (i) full name or title; (ii) address, (iii) telephone number; and (iv) the identity of all persons who acted, or who authorized another to act, on its behalf in connection with the matters referred to. 10. If you know of a responsive document that it is not in your custody or control, state: (i) its date and general type of category (e.g., letter, contract, memorandum); (ii) the identity of its author; (iii) the identity of each addressee and other distributee to whom the document was transmitted; (iv) the identity of its last known location or custodian; (v) the reason(s) for your inability to produce or locate such document; and (vi) the identity of the person or entity to whom custody or possession was given. 11. When asked to "identify", or "for the identity" of, an oral communication, set forth: (i) the date and place thereof or, in the case of a telephone conversation, where the parties thereto were located at the time of the communication; (ii) the identity of each person who participated in, or was present during, the communication; and (iii) identify, in accordance with the prior requirements hereof, all documents that were prepared as a consequence of, or that contain information relative to, the subject of the oral communication. 12. When a discovery request refers to an action or event, "describe in detail", and/or “describe, in detail”, you shall provide a description of the action, including when, where, and how it occurred, and who was present and/or participated in the action or event. 13. When a discovery request refers to a document or other written or oral communication, "describe in detail", and/or “describe, in detail”, you shall state: (i) the type of document or other communication; (ii) the date it was created; (iii) the identity of all persons Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ 2 involved creating the document or communication; and (iv) the present location of the document or communication. DEFINITIONS 1. “Plaintiff” refers to Caryn M. Groedel, Esq. and/or Caryn Groedel & Associates Co., LPA, its officers, trustees, employees, agents, attorneys, experts, investigators, and/or other persons acting, and/or purporting to act, on its behalf. 2. “Defendant” refers to Ronald (a/k/a Ron) Laraway. 3. "Document" and "documents" refer to any printed, written, taped, recorded, graphic, computerized printout, or other tangible matter, from whatever source, however produced or reproduced, whether in draft or otherwise, whether sent or received, or neither, including, but not limited to, the original, a copy (if the original is not available), and all nonidentical copies (whether different from the original because of notes made on or attached to such copy or otherwise), and/or any and all writings, correspondence, letters, telegrams, cables, contracts, proposals, agreements, minutes, acknowledgments, notes, memoranda, analyses, projections, work papers, books, forecasts or appraisals, papers, records, reports, diaries, statements, questionnaires, schedules, computer programs or data, books of account, calendars, graphs, charts, transcripts, tapes, transcripts or records, photographs, pictures or film, ledgers, registers, worksheets, summaries, digests, financial statements, and all other information or data, records, or compilations, including all underlying supporting or preparatory material now in your possession, custody, or control, or available to you, your counsel, accountants, agents, representatives, and/or associates. "Document" and "documents" specifically includes documents maintained in a desk, at home, at one or more County Commissioners’ offices, or elsewhere. 4. "Communication" and "communicate" include information relating to oral communications and "documents" (as defined above), regardless of whether such document, or the information contained therein, was transmitted by its author to any other person. 5. "Meeting" or "meetings" means any meeting of any agent, employee, trustee, director, board member, and/or representative of County Commissioners, or combination of groupings of such agents, employees, trustees, directors, board members, and/or representatives, and includes tape, audio, and/or video recordings, and/or written or other transcriptions of any such meetings reflecting the particular date, time, and/or substance of discussion at each such meeting. 6. "You" and "your" refers to Ronald / Ron Laraway. 7. "Person" includes a natural person, partnership, firm, corporation, and any other kind of business or legal entity, its agents, and/or employees. 8. “Complaint” means lawsuit, administrative charge or proceeding, arbitration, mediation, grievance, and/or other formal or informal dispute resolution procedure, and includes all formal and informal charges, complaints, and/or report procedures created, maintained, and/or used by the County Commissioners. Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ 3 REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 1. Admit or deny that Plaintiff represented you in 2002, 2003, and 2004, in the case of Ronald J. Laraway v. John Lance Ford, et al., Case No. CV-02-466801 in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. RESPONSE: 2. Admit or deny that the case of Ronald J. Laraway v. John Lance Ford, et al., Case No. CV-02-466801 in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, went to trial in 2004, and attorney Caryn M. Groedel represented you in that trial. RESPONSE: 3. Admit or deny that, on August 31, 2004, Judge Timothy McCormick entered judgment in your favor in the amount of $595,000 in the case of Ronald J. Laraway v. John Lance Ford, et al., Case No. CV-02-466801 in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. RESPONSE: 4. Admit or deny that you retained Plaintiff or about October 12, 2022, to represent you in a potential employment claim against Auto Services Unlimited and/or Honda of Cleveland Heights. RESPONSE: 5. Admit that you were employed by Honda of Cleveland Heights for one month -- from April 25, 2022 to May 24, 2022. RESPONSE: 6. Admit or deny that the document attached hereto as Ex. 1 is a true and accurate copy of the fee agreement you signed with Caryn Groedel & Associates Co., LPA (“CG&A”) on or about January 23 2023. RESPONSE: 7. Admit or deny that Ex. 1 requires you to pay Defendant a $2,000 retainer, costs, and 40% of the value of any recovery CG&A obtained on your behalf. RESPONSE: 8. Admit or deny that on February 23, 2023, Plaintiff terminated its attorney-client relationship with you. RESPONSE: 9. Admit or deny that the document attached hereto as Ex. 2 is a true and accurate copy of an email you transmitted to Caryn M. Groedel, Esq. on February 24, 2023. RESPONSE: 10. Admit or deny that, in your February 24, 2023 email to attorney Caryn M. Groedel, you twice asked attorney Groedel to reconsider her decision to end her attorney-client relationship with you. RESPONSE: Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ 4 11. Admit or deny that, in your February 24, 2023 email to attorney Groedel, you stated, “I don’t trust anyone but you.” RESPONSE: 12. Admit or deny that, in your February 24, 2023 email to attorney Groedel, you stated, among other things, “I need your help.” RESPONSE: 13. Admit or deny that, on Friday, March 17, 2023, attorney Groedel sent you an email stating that mediation with the OCRC was scheduled for 8:30 AM on April 4, and that your attendance was required. RESPONSE: 14. Admit or deny that you stated, in an email to attorney Groedel dated March 18, 2023, that you were looking for an attorney to litigate. RESPONSE: 15. Admit or deny that attorney Groedel told you by email dated Sunday, March 19, 2023, that you did not need to hire an attorney [for litigation] unless mediation was unsuccessful, and that she would represent you [in litigation] if she was able to wrap up a couple of her other cases. RESPONSE: 13. Admit or deny that, after February 23, 2023, you entered into no other fee agreements with Plaintiff. RESPONSE: 14. Admit or deny that Ex. 3 attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of a March 19, 2023 email you transmitted to attorney Groedel. RESPONSE: 15. Admit or deny that Ex. 4 attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of an email string between you and attorney Groedel containing emails between March 17, 2023 and March 20, 2023. RESPONSE: 16. Admit or deny that, at no time prior to the April 4 OCRC mediation, did you ask Ms. Groedel for a new fee agreement for mediation purposes. RESPONSE: 17. Admit or deny that, at no time after February 23, 2023, did you inquire as to whether Plaintiff’s representation of you at the OCRC mediation would be on terms different from the fee agreement you signed on January 23, 2023. RESPONSE: 18. Admit or deny that, prior to the OCRC mediation, Plaintiff guided you through the OCRC process. RESPONSE: Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ 5 19. Admit or deny that Plaintiff instructed you on what you should say on your OCRC Charge form. RESPONSE: 20. Admit or deny that Plaintiff recommended to you that you revise the language in your OCRC Charge of Discrimination. RESPONSE: 21. Admit or deny that Plaintiff suggested to you that you provide OCRC with documents pertaining to your employment. RESPONSE: 22. Admit or deny that Plaintiff counseled/advised you on your communications with the OCRC investigator. RESPONSE: 23. Admit or deny that on March 17, 2023, Plaintiff informed you that the OCRC- facilitated mediation was scheduled for April 4, 2023. RESPONSE: 24. Admit or deny that Caryn M. Groedel attended, and represented you in, the April 4, 2023 OCRC-facilitated mediation. RESPONSE: 25. Admit or deny that, as a result of the April 4, 2023 OCRC mediation, OHH1, LLC d/b/a Honda of Cleveland Heights entered into a settlement agreement with you for the sum of $85,000. RESPONSE: 26. Admit or deny that Plaintiff negotiated the terms and conditions for the settlement agreement between you and OHH1, LLC d/b/a Honda of Cleveland Heights. RESPONSE: 27. Admit or deny that Plaintiff included you in the negotiations of the terms and the conditions of the settlement agreement between you and OHH1, LLC d/b/a Honda of Cleveland Heights. RESPONSE: 28. Admit or deny that, at no time between January 1, 2023 and April 4, 2023, did you express any problem, issue, or concern to Plaintiff regarding the January 23, 2023 fee agreement you had signed with Plaintiff. RESPONSE: 29. Admit or deny that Plaintiff emailed a Disbursement Statement to you on April 4, 2023. RESPONSE: 30. Admit or deny that Ex. 5 attached hereto is a true and accurate copy of the April 4, 2023 email attorney Groedel sent you transmitting a Disbursement Statement. Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ 6 RESPONSE: Admit or deny that the document attached to Ex. 5 is a true and accurate copy of the Disbursement Statement attorney Groedel sent you by email on April 4, 2023. 31. Admit or deny that you refused to sign the Disbursement Statement attorney Groedel emailed you on April 4, 2023. RESPONSE: 32. Admit or deny that Plaintiff transmitted a W-9 form to you on April 4, 2023. RESPONSE: 33. Admit or deny that, at no time prior to your receipt of the Disbursement Statement on April 4, 2023, did you express to Plaintiff any concerns about the fee it would receive as a result of any settlement it procured on your behalf. RESPONSE: 34. Admit that, in April 2023, you received a settlement check in the amount of $53,000 from OHH1, LLC dba Honda of Cleveland Heights or one of its attorneys. RESPONSE: 35. Admit or deny that the $53,000 settlement check you received from OHH1, LLC dba Honda of Cleveland Heights represents 60% of the total settlement between you and OHH1, LLC d/b/a Honda of Cleveland Heights. RESPONSE: 36. Admit or deny that, as a result of your failure to sign the Disbursement Statement Plaintiff sent you, counsel for OHH1, LLC dba Honda of Cleveland Heights transmitted an email to you, attorney Groedel, and Ms. Gina Curry at the OCRC, stating that she was going to pay you 60% of the settlement amount and place the remaining settlement funds in escrow. RESPONSE: 37. Admit or deny that you have failed and refused to authorize OHH1, LLC dba Honda of Cleveland Heights or its counsel for Honda of Cleveland Heights to release 40% of the settlement sum to CG&A. RESPONSE: 38. Admit or deny that you have failed and refused to authorize OHH1, LLC dba Honda of Cleveland Heights or its counsel for Honda of Cleveland Heights to release 35% of the settlement sum to CG&A. RESPONSE: 39. Admit or deny that you have failed and refused to authorize OHH1, LLC dba Honda of Cleveland Heights or its counsel for Honda of Cleveland Heights to release 30% of the settlement sum to CG&A. RESPONSE: 40. Admit or deny that, at no time between the date you signed your 1/23/23 fee agreement with Plaintiff, and the OCRC mediation on April 4, 4023, did you ask Plaintiff to Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ 7 reduce the 40% contingency fee set forth in the fee agreement you signed with Plaintiff on January 23, 2023. RESPONSE: /s/ Caryn M. Groedel_________ Caryn M. Groedel (0060131) CARYN GROEDEL & ASSOCIATES CO., LPA 208 Spriggel Drive Munroe Falls, OH 44262 Phone: (440) 230-3808 (440) 207-9557 Fax: (440) 664-25478 cgroedel@groedel-law.com Counsel for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on this 25th day of July, 2023, a copy of the foregoing Requests for Admission were emailed in both Word and PDF format to Defendant Ron Laraway at tdpack10@aol.com and mailed via U.S. regular mail. /s/ Caryn M. Groedel_________ Caryn M. Groedel Electronically Filed 11/02/2023 16:53 / MOTION / CV 23 978501 / Confirmation Nbr. 3008066 / CLDLJ 8 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO CARYN GROEDEL & ASSOCIATES ) CASE NO. CV 23 978501 ) Plaintiff ) JUDGE WILLIAM F.B. VODREY ) vs. ) DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO ) PLAINTIFF’S RQUESTS FOR RON LARAWAY ) ADMISSIONS ) Defendant ) Now comes the Defendant Ron Laraway, by and through counsel, and hereby submits his responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 1. Admit or deny that Plaintiff represented you in 2002, 2003, and 2004, in the case of Ronald J. Laraway v. John Lance Ford, et al., Case No. CV-02-466801 in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. RESPONSE: Admit. 2. Admit or deny that the case of Ronald J. Laraway v. John Lance Ford, et al., Case No. CV-02-466801 in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, went to trial in 2004, and attorney Caryn M. Groedel represented you in that trial. RESPONSE: Admit. 3. Admit or deny that, on August 31, 2004, Judge Timothy McCormick entered judgment in your favor in the amount of $595,000 in the case of Ronald J. Laraway v. John Lance Ford, et al., Case No. CV-02-466801 in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. RESPONSE: Deny. The judgment entered was for $595,200. 4. Admit or deny that you retained Plaintiff or about October 12, 2022, to represent you in a potential employment claim against Auto Services Unlimited and/or Honda of Cleveland Heights. RESPONSE: Admit. 5. Admit that you were employed by Honda of Cleveland Heights for one month - from April 25, 2022 to May 24, 2022. RESPONSE: Deny. The termination was May 27, 2022. 6. Admit or deny that the document attached hereto as Ex. 1 is a true and accurate copy of the fee agreement you signed with Caryn Groedel & Associates Co., LPA (“CG&A”) on or about January 23 2023. RESPONSE: Admit that it was the legal service agreement that I signed but was later terminated and cancelled by you. 7. Admit or deny that Ex. 1 requires you to pay Defendant a $2,000 retainer, costs, and 40% of the value of any recovery CG&A obtained on your behalf. RESPONSE: Admit the legal service contract that was terminated in February 2023 contained those terms but did not require me to pay Defendant. 8. Admit or deny that on February 23, 2023, Plaintiff terminated its attorney-client relationship with you. RESPONSE: Admit. 9. Admit or deny that the document attached hereto as Ex. 2 is a true and accurate copy of an email you transmitted to Caryn M. Groedel, Esq. on February 24, 2023. RESPONSE: Admit. 10. Admit or deny that, in your February 24, 2023 email to attorney Caryn M. Groedel, you twice asked attorney Groedel to reconsider her decision to end her attorney-clien