Preview
Motion No. 5133318
NAILAH K. BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Court of Common Pleas
MOTION TO DISMISS
November 27,2023 10:30
By: LINDAU. WOEBER 0039112
Confirmation Nbr. 3025976
GEORGEANNAM. SEMARY CV 23 984974
vs.
Judge: ANDREW J. SANTOLI
LESLIE ANN CELEBREZZE, ET AL.
Pages Filed: 5
Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 10:30 / MOTION / CV 23 984974 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025976 / CLJSZ
IN THE CUYAHOGA COUNTY
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
GEORGEANNA M. SEMARY, Case No. CV-23-984974
Plaintiff, JUDGE ANDREW J. SANTOLI
v. DEFENDANT JUDGE LESLIE ANN
CELEBREZZE’S MOTION TO STAY
LESLIE ANN CELEBREZZE, et al., DISCOVERY
Defendants. :
Now comes Defendant, the Honorable Leslie Ann Celebrezze, by and through the
undersigned counsel, and hereby moves this Court for an Order staying discovery while
her Motion to Dismiss is pending.
Procedural Posture
On September 5, 2023, plaintiff Georgeanna Semary filed this action against Judge
Leslie Ann Celebrezze and four members of Court Administration others related to
Semary's removal from her position as Judge Celebrezze's judicial assistant. See
Complaint, generally. She alleged eight causes of action against the defendants.
On November 6, 2023, Judge Celebrezze filed a Motion to Dismiss Counts 1-3 and
6-8 of Plaintiff's Complaint. Judge Celebrezze also filed an Answer, as did the remaining
named defendants.
In response to the Motion to Dismiss, on November 21, 2023, Semary filed a
“Motion for 30-Day Extension of Time to File Brief in Opposition to Defendant
Celebrezze's Motion to Dismiss Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 of the Complaint and to Amend
the Complaint without Leave.” In the motion, Semary's counsel outline both their
professional and personal commitments between now and the middle of December and
Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 10:30 / MOTION / CV 23 984974 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025976 / CLJSZ
request a new response deadline of December 20, 2023. Counsel also indicates, however,
that they are “continuing to investigate facts and research law for their anticipated
amended complaint,” and they request an extension of time through January 4, 2024, to
amend the complaint without leave. In other words, Semary would like to go forward with
briefing on Judge Celebrezze's motion and, in all likelihood, prior to a ruling on the
motion, file an amended complaint without being accountable to the Court for whatever
parties, claims, or facts she may choose to add.
Meanwhile, Semary, through her counsel, has subpoenaed non-party Lisa Moran
for a deposition on December 18, 2023; contacted a domestic relations court judge,
seeking to schedule her deposition on the same date; and has served several subpoenas
on non-parties Mark Dottore, Mark Dottore's ex-wife (Lisa Moran), and Dottore
Companies in this case. Judge Celebrezze has already responded to Semary's extensive
written discovery, including 174 requests for admission.
Judge Celebrezze requests this Court stay discovery pending the resolution of her
Motion to Dismiss and/or any motion responsive to Semary's “anticipated amended
complaint.” Counsel for Semary have indicated that Semary's anticipated amended
complaint may involve claims against non-parties and new claims against Defendants. A
stay of discovery, including any depositions, is appropriate for the reasons set forth below.
Argument
A court has discretion to direct the timing of pre-trial discovery. See Thomson v.
Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 09AP-782, 2010-Ohio-416 ("A trial court
acts within its discretion when it grants a stay of discovery pending the resolution of a
dispositive motion"). An Order granting a stay of discovery is well within this Court's
broad discretion and will avoid the unnecessary burden and expense of premature, and
Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 10:30 / MOTION / CV 23 984974/ Confirmation Nbr. 3025976 / CLJSZ
possibly irrelevant, discovery. State ex rel. Grandview Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 51 Ohio St.3d
94, 95, 554 N.E.2d 1297 (1990); Battle v. Favreau, 5th Dist. Morgan No. 15CA0007, 2015
Ohio 5062, ^18, citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
"When a defendant makes a facial challenge to the sufficiency of a claim, a motion
to dismiss based on a failure to state a claim should be resolved before discovery begins—
doing so spares the party [defending against the claim] from having to engage in the kind
of litigation that is to be avoided [through] resolution of the motion to dismiss." Pittman
v. Parillo, 2014 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 30610, *3-4; citing Henderson v. Synenberg, 8th Dist.
No. 100910, 2014-Ohio-4089, at 20.
At present, Judge Celebrezze has asserted grounds upon which the Court should
dismiss all but two of the claims asserted against her. Semary, in turn, asserts that she
anticipates amending the complaint to add additional claims and/or parties. She requests
leave to do so without leave of court, despite all defendants having answered, and without
any substantive notice to the defendants about what the anticipated amended complaint
will specifically allege. Defendants are left to speculate as to the claims against them, and
who else may be added as defendants, and yet simultaneously asked to engage in
discovery that may or may not lead to evidence relevant to valid legal claims.
Based either on the resolution of the motion to dismiss and/or the amendment of
the complaint (and any resulting motions on the pleadings related to the amended
complaint), the claims at issue in this case could be substantially broadened or
substantially limited. There could also be, based on representations by counsel for
Semary, additional parties added as defendants. It is entirely unclear at this point what
claims will ultimately be adjudicated in this case and, as a result, what discovery is
necessary. Allowing the motion to dismiss to be ruled upon and/or any amendment to the
Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 10:30 / MOTION / CV 23 984974/ Confirmation Nbr. 3025976 / CLJSZ
Complaint to be filed would clarify the issues for resolution and protect the parties and
witnesses—specifically non-party deponent, Lisa Moran, and other non-party witnesses—
from the time and expense of discovery that may not be related to the cases' ultimate
resolution.
Furthermore, if Plaintiff adds new parties and claims to this case, the witnesses
Plaintiff intends to depose now, could be subject to a second deposition. This is likely,
especially because Plaintiff's counsel mentioned that they may add Mark Dottore and
Dottore Companies as defendants. Counsel for Mark Dottore and Dottore Companies
would then be entitled to examine any witnesses deposed by Plaintiff.
This Court has the ability, under Civ.R. 26(D), to stay discovery “for the
convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice.” Judge Celebrezze
submits that, in the interest of justice and at this very early stage in this case, a stay of
discovery is appropriate while her Motion to Dismiss is pending and the potential for an
Amended Complaint looms.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Linda L. Woeber________
LINDA L. WOEBER (0039112)
LISA M. ZARING (0080659)
MONTGOMERY JONSON LLP
600 Vine Street, Suite 2650
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 768-5239
lwoeber@mojolaw.com
Counselfor Defendant Judge Leslie Ann
Celebrezze
Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 10:30 / MOTION / CV 23 984974/ Confirmation Nbr. 3025976 / CLJSZ
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true and accurate copy of the foregoing Motion was electronically filed with the
Court on this 27th day of November, 2023, and by way of the Court's electronic
notification system notice of this filing was provided to all registered parties.
/s/ Linda L. Woeber________
LINDA L. WOEBER (0039112)
Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 10:30 / MOTION / CV 23 984974/ Confirmation Nbr. 3025976 / CLJSZ
Preview
Motion No. 5133318 NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Court of Common Pleas MOTION TO DISMISS November 27,2023 10:30 By: LINDAU. WOEBER 0039112 Confirmation Nbr. 3025976 GEORGEANNAM. SEMARY CV 23 984974 vs. Judge: ANDREW J. SANTOLI LESLIE ANN CELEBREZZE, ET AL. Pages Filed: 5 Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 10:30 / MOTION / CV 23 984974 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025976 / CLJSZ IN THE CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GEORGEANNA M. SEMARY, Case No. CV-23-984974 Plaintiff, JUDGE ANDREW J. SANTOLI v. DEFENDANT JUDGE LESLIE ANN CELEBREZZE’S MOTION TO STAY LESLIE ANN CELEBREZZE, et al., DISCOVERY Defendants. : Now comes Defendant, the Honorable Leslie Ann Celebrezze, by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby moves this Court for an Order staying discovery while her Motion to Dismiss is pending. Procedural Posture On September 5, 2023, plaintiff Georgeanna Semary filed this action against Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze and four members of Court Administration others related to Semary's removal from her position as Judge Celebrezze's judicial assistant. See Complaint, generally. She alleged eight causes of action against the defendants. On November 6, 2023, Judge Celebrezze filed a Motion to Dismiss Counts 1-3 and 6-8 of Plaintiff's Complaint. Judge Celebrezze also filed an Answer, as did the remaining named defendants. In response to the Motion to Dismiss, on November 21, 2023, Semary filed a “Motion for 30-Day Extension of Time to File Brief in Opposition to Defendant Celebrezze's Motion to Dismiss Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 of the Complaint and to Amend the Complaint without Leave.” In the motion, Semary's counsel outline both their professional and personal commitments between now and the middle of December and Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 10:30 / MOTION / CV 23 984974 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025976 / CLJSZ request a new response deadline of December 20, 2023. Counsel also indicates, however, that they are “continuing to investigate facts and research law for their anticipated amended complaint,” and they request an extension of time through January 4, 2024, to amend the complaint without leave. In other words, Semary would like to go forward with briefing on Judge Celebrezze's motion and, in all likelihood, prior to a ruling on the motion, file an amended complaint without being accountable to the Court for whatever parties, claims, or facts she may choose to add. Meanwhile, Semary, through her counsel, has subpoenaed non-party Lisa Moran for a deposition on December 18, 2023; contacted a domestic relations court judge, seeking to schedule her deposition on the same date; and has served several subpoenas on non-parties Mark Dottore, Mark Dottore's ex-wife (Lisa Moran), and Dottore Companies in this case. Judge Celebrezze has already responded to Semary's extensive written discovery, including 174 requests for admission. Judge Celebrezze requests this Court stay discovery pending the resolution of her Motion to Dismiss and/or any motion responsive to Semary's “anticipated amended complaint.” Counsel for Semary have indicated that Semary's anticipated amended complaint may involve claims against non-parties and new claims against Defendants. A stay of discovery, including any depositions, is appropriate for the reasons set forth below. Argument A court has discretion to direct the timing of pre-trial discovery. See Thomson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 09AP-782, 2010-Ohio-416 ("A trial court acts within its discretion when it grants a stay of discovery pending the resolution of a dispositive motion"). An Order granting a stay of discovery is well within this Court's broad discretion and will avoid the unnecessary burden and expense of premature, and Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 10:30 / MOTION / CV 23 984974/ Confirmation Nbr. 3025976 / CLJSZ possibly irrelevant, discovery. State ex rel. Grandview Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 51 Ohio St.3d 94, 95, 554 N.E.2d 1297 (1990); Battle v. Favreau, 5th Dist. Morgan No. 15CA0007, 2015 Ohio 5062, ^18, citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). "When a defendant makes a facial challenge to the sufficiency of a claim, a motion to dismiss based on a failure to state a claim should be resolved before discovery begins— doing so spares the party [defending against the claim] from having to engage in the kind of litigation that is to be avoided [through] resolution of the motion to dismiss." Pittman v. Parillo, 2014 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 30610, *3-4; citing Henderson v. Synenberg, 8th Dist. No. 100910, 2014-Ohio-4089, at 20. At present, Judge Celebrezze has asserted grounds upon which the Court should dismiss all but two of the claims asserted against her. Semary, in turn, asserts that she anticipates amending the complaint to add additional claims and/or parties. She requests leave to do so without leave of court, despite all defendants having answered, and without any substantive notice to the defendants about what the anticipated amended complaint will specifically allege. Defendants are left to speculate as to the claims against them, and who else may be added as defendants, and yet simultaneously asked to engage in discovery that may or may not lead to evidence relevant to valid legal claims. Based either on the resolution of the motion to dismiss and/or the amendment of the complaint (and any resulting motions on the pleadings related to the amended complaint), the claims at issue in this case could be substantially broadened or substantially limited. There could also be, based on representations by counsel for Semary, additional parties added as defendants. It is entirely unclear at this point what claims will ultimately be adjudicated in this case and, as a result, what discovery is necessary. Allowing the motion to dismiss to be ruled upon and/or any amendment to the Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 10:30 / MOTION / CV 23 984974/ Confirmation Nbr. 3025976 / CLJSZ Complaint to be filed would clarify the issues for resolution and protect the parties and witnesses—specifically non-party deponent, Lisa Moran, and other non-party witnesses— from the time and expense of discovery that may not be related to the cases' ultimate resolution. Furthermore, if Plaintiff adds new parties and claims to this case, the witnesses Plaintiff intends to depose now, could be subject to a second deposition. This is likely, especially because Plaintiff's counsel mentioned that they may add Mark Dottore and Dottore Companies as defendants. Counsel for Mark Dottore and Dottore Companies would then be entitled to examine any witnesses deposed by Plaintiff. This Court has the ability, under Civ.R. 26(D), to stay discovery “for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice.” Judge Celebrezze submits that, in the interest of justice and at this very early stage in this case, a stay of discovery is appropriate while her Motion to Dismiss is pending and the potential for an Amended Complaint looms. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Linda L. Woeber________ LINDA L. WOEBER (0039112) LISA M. ZARING (0080659) MONTGOMERY JONSON LLP 600 Vine Street, Suite 2650 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 768-5239 lwoeber@mojolaw.com Counselfor Defendant Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 10:30 / MOTION / CV 23 984974/ Confirmation Nbr. 3025976 / CLJSZ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A true and accurate copy of the foregoing Motion was electronically filed with the Court on this 27th day of November, 2023, and by way of the Court's electronic notification system notice of this filing was provided to all registered parties. /s/ Linda L. Woeber________ LINDA L. WOEBER (0039112) Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 10:30 / MOTION / CV 23 984974/ Confirmation Nbr. 3025976 / CLJSZ