Motion for Case Management in L. BRYAN CARR vs. KEVIN CRONIN| Trellis.Law

On August 15, 2023 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between L Bryan Carr, and Kevin Cronin, for TORT-MISCELLANEOUS in the District Court of Cuyahoga County.

Preview
Motion No. 5133212

NAILAH K. BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Court of Common Pleas

MOTION FOR...
November 27,2023 09:22

By: L. BRYAN CARR 0066649

Confirmation Nbr. 3025830

L. BRYAN CARR CV 23 983953

vs.
Judge: NANCY A. FUERST
KEVIN CRONIN

Pages Filed: 28

Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION / CV 23 983953 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 / BATCH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

L. BRYAN CARR ) CASE NO. CV-23-983953
Plaintiff, )
) JUDGE NANCY A. FUERST
vs. )
) MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
KEVIN CRONIN ) TO RESPOND TO THE DEFENDANT’S
Defendant. ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDMENT
) AND TO SET CASE MANAGEMENT
) CONFERENCE
)
) RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
AND FOR SANCTIONS

Now comes Plaintiff and respectfully submits the following: First, Plaintiff is moving this

Court for an extension of time to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and to set

a Case Management Conference. Second, relating to this request is the Plaintiffs Response to the

Defendant’s “Motion for Protective Order.” Finally, Plaintiff is moving that the Defendant be

compelled to respond to discovery (and sanctioned). Although, he filed a “Motion for Protective

Order,” the Defendant chose to disrespect this Court (and the Plaintiff) by submitting arrogant and

ridiculous “discovery responses.” The Defendant must be sanctioned for his repeated dilatory and

frivolous conduct. Simply put, this Court must stop the Defendant’s abuse/misuse of the legal

process. The Plaintiff’s Brief in Support is attached hereto.

Respectfully Submitted:

1392 SOM Center Road
Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124
(440) 473-2277
carrlawflrm@aoi.com
Plaintiff, Pro Se

Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION / CV 23 983953 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 / BATCH
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

On August 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against the Defendant, On August 30,

2023, Defendant filed his Answer. On September 1, 2023, Defendant attempted to file a Motion

to Dismiss. In its September 27, 2023 Order (denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss) this

Court stated: “In sum, Defendant has answered and the case will proceed accordingly.” As is

custom in our legal system, pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff issued

written discovery to Defendant on October 18, 2023. (As this Court knows, Defendant filed a

Motion for Summary Judgment on October 11, 2023.) Plaintiff is entitled to conduct discovery

and utilize same in the defense of the Motion for Summary Judgment. Those are the Civil Rules.

On November 14, 2023, to further delay this case (and hamper Plaintiffs right to

discovery and respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment,) Defendant filed a Motion for

Protective Order. Again, Plaintiff is entitled under the Civil Rules to engage in discovery and

utilize same in the defense of the Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant wants to file for

Summary Judgment, yet does not want to respond to discovery. The law does not work that way.

Further, the Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is frivolous. To begin with, the

Plaintiffs discovery requests are not onerous, oppressive or otherwise harassing. The discovery

requests are brief, narrowly tailored to the subject matter of the litigation and do not violate any

possible privilege. Defendant made the comment that Plaintiff is “deeply embroiled in

protecting illegal drug sales, drag use and child abuse.” What the Defendant does not understand

is that he (an attorney) made this defamatory statement against another attorney in a public filing.

Now Defendant has to answer for/prove it. There is no “immunity” for such conduct.

Defendant’s relies upon Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229 (1986) is misplaced. To begin

Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION / CV 23 983953 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 / BATCH
with, Defendant’s statement (“Plaintiff is deeply embroiled in protecting illegal drug sales, drug

use and child abuse”) was not material or relevant to the prior litigation. See, Pincus v. Pincus,

127 N.E.3d 393 (2018); Horenstein, Nicholson & Blumenthal, LPA v. Hilgeman, 2021 Ohio

3049 The prior litigation was about Defendant’s client’s fraud and forgery in furtherance of his

civil theft of Plaintiff’s client’s property. The prior litigation had nothing to do with

alleged/unproven “drug sales, drug use and child abuse.” If it did, the Trial Court would not

have agreed with Plaintiff and awarded Summary Judgment (not appealed). Defendant must also

demonstrate he did not act with malice or recklessly disregard the truth (why Plaintiff demands

discovery). Pincus, at 393. Finally, while a privilege may exist if a defamatory statement were

material and relevant to litigation and made against a party, the fact the defamatory statement

was made by an attorney against another attorney defeats Defendant’s argument.

Significantly, given his recent conduct (infra') the Defendant has abandoned his Motion

for Protective Order. Specifically, Defendant chose to forward frivolous and bad faith discovery

responses to Plaintiff (infra). Until the discovery process is complete, Plaintiff moves this Court

to extend his time to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment AND establish a

formal dispositive motion date in the event Plaintiff decides to file for Summary Judgment.

Also, Plaintiffhas received a Jury Summons for the week ofNovember 27, 2023 and will not able

to file a response. This request is not made for delay and no future date will be impacted, Also,

Plaintiff requests that the Court set a Case Management Conference.

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SANCTIONS

Defendant is obligated to follow the Civil Rules. As he acts without regard for the Court,

the Rules or opposing counsel, this Court must issue an Order compelling Defendant to respond

to discovery. This Court must also sanction the Defendant due to his recent conduct. To wit:

Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION / CV 23 983953 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 / BATCH
On October 18, 2023, Plaintiff served the Defendant with Interrogatories, Request for

Admissions and Request for Production of Documents. (Exhibit A) Responses were due by

November 15, 2023. On November 14, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for Protective Order. A

telephone pre-trial was held on November 21,2023. This Court issued an Order thereafter.

On November 22, 2023, Plaintiff reached out to Defendant in good faith (as he

represented to the Court he would). Unfortunately, Defendant immediately responded with

invective and disparaging comments toward Plaintiff and Plaintiffs father. (Exhibit S) To

“double-down” on his bad faith, later on November 22, 2023 (at 4:30 p.m. the evening before

Thanksgiving) and contrary to his Motion for Protective Order (thereby abandoning his Motion,)

Defendant forwarded to the Plaintiff “discovery responses” which can only be described as

mocking and intentionally worthless. (Exhibit C) Defendant sent these with an e-mail that

arrogantly and mockingly stated: “Happy holiday weekend.” (Exhibit B) As this Court can see,

Defendant took the time to cut and paste the same frivolous objection to each and every

Interrogatory, Request for Admission and Request for Production. (Exhibit C) Courts cannot

permit this type of behavior... especially from an attorney. Further, the Defendant’s case law is

not a reason to refuse to provide discovery. It is clear that the Defendant must be compelled to

respond to discovery and sanctioned due to his conduct.

Rule 37 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure states, in pertinent part that:

(a) Motion for Order Compelling Discovery

Upon reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected thereby, a
party may move for an Order compelling discovery as follows:

(2) Motion. If a deponent fails to answer a question propounded or
submitted under Rules 30 or Rules 31...or a party fails to answer an
interrogatory submitted under Rule 33, or if a party, in response to a
request for inspection submitted under Rule 34, fails to respond that
inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit inspection as

Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION / CV 23 983953 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 / BATCH
requested, the discovery party may move for an order compelling an
answer...or an order compelling inspection in accordance with the
request...

(4)Award of expenses of motion. If the motion is granted, the Court shall,
after affording an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent
who opposed the motion or the party or attorney advising such conduct or
both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred
in obtaining the order, including attorney fees...

(d) Failure of party to attend at own disposition or serve answers to
interrogatories or respond to request for inspection.

If a party...fails (1) to appear before the officer who is to take his
deposition, after being served with a proper notice, or (2) to serve answers
of objections to interrogatories submitted under Rule 33, after proper
service of the interrogatories, or (3) to service a written response to a
request for inspection submitted under Rule 34, after proper service of the
request, the court in which the action is pending on motion and notice may
take such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others it
may take any action authorized under subsections (a), (b), and ( c) of
subdivisions (B)(2) of this rule. In lieu of any order or in addition, thereto,
the court shall require the party failing to act or the attorney advising him
or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused
by the failure...

Clearly, Defendant’s failure to respond to discovery is a violation of the Civil Rules.

Further, with respect to Defendant’s failure to respond, it is well established that in the absence

of an express finding that a party's failure to respond to discovery requests was substantially

justified or that an award of reasonable expenses would be unjust, it is error to not award

reasonable expenses. See, Solomon v. Excel Marketing, Inc.. 114 Ohio App. 3d 20 (1996)

Defendant must be compelled to respond to Plaintiffs discovery requests. Further,

sanctions must be issued for the Defendant’s frivolous conduct and bad faith. Defendant’s failure

to produce the requested discovery responses and documentation (and the delay that has

occurred) is sanctionable. Pursuant to all applicable rules. Defendant must be compelled to

respond to Plaintiffs Discovery. Further, Defendant must be sanctioned.

Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION / CV 23 983953 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 / BATCH
CONCLUSION

Plaintiff respectfully requests Orders from this Court: (1) Extending the time Plaintiff has

to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and setting a Case Management

Conference; (2) Compelling Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests (and denying

the Motion for Protective Order - which was abandoned); and (3) sanctioning Defendant.

Respectfully Submitted:

L. BRYAN CARR (0066649)
1392 SOM Center Road
Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124
(440) 473-2277
c arrl a wfirm @ao 1. com
Plaintiff, Pro Se

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The foregoing was filed electronically via the Court’s electronic filing system on October

27,2023. All counsel of record will be served via this electronic filing system.

L. BRYAN CARR (0066649)
Plaintiff, Pro Se

Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION / CV 23 983953 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 / BATCH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

L. BRYAN CARR ) CASE NO. CV-23-983953
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE NANCY A. FUERST
)
v. ) PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF
) INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR
KEVIN CRONIN ) PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
) REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
Defendant. )
) Reqnest for Admissions Included

Plaintiff hereby propounds the following interrogatories and requests for production of

documents to Defendant pursuant to Rules 33, 34 and 36 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure.

These discovery requests should be answered fully, in writing and under oath, within twenty-eight

(28) days of service. Responsive documents should be produced to undersigned counsel at 1392

SOM Center Road, Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124. Copies of responsive documents may

alternatively be sent by regular or electronic mail.

If you refuse to answer or respond to any discovery request in whole or in part, state fully

the basis for your refusal. If a privilege is claimed, identify any document or communication for

which the privilege is asserted, and set forth the nature of the privilege in a manner sufficient to

enable the Plaintiffs counsel to evaluate your claim.

DEFINITIONS

1. “Communication” means any statement or utterance, whether written or oral, made

by any means by one person to another or in the presence of another, or any document delivered

or sent from one person to another. Communications “to you” or “from you” include

communications on which you were copied but not the primary sender or recipient.

Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION / CV 23 983953 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 / BATCH
2. “Documents” is intended to have the broadest meaning which can be ascribed to it

and includes any and all tangible items or written matter of any kind or nature, whether stored

electronically or in hard copy. This includes but is not limited to correspondence, letters, emails,

records, statements, memoranda, reports, handwritten or typed notes, messages, correspondence,

meeting minutes, and drafts of any documents.

3. “Person” means an individual, corporation, partnership or association, or any other

business or government agency.

4. “You” or “your” refers to Kevin Cronin and for purposes of answering and

responding to these discover)' requests, documents and information in “your-” possession includes

non-privileged material and information in the possession, custody, and control of you and your

agents, attorneys, anyone acting on your behalf.

5. “Litigation” refers to the lawsuit captioned K&O Transportation & Logistics, LLC

v, Robert Perkins, Case No. CV-22-964387 in which you represented Robert Perkins.

6. “Answer” shall refer to the Answer you filed in this case.

INTERROGATORIES

1. State the name and residence address of each answering these interrogatories, and
if more than one person is listed, list the interrogatories each person assisted in answering.

ANSWER:

2. Identify all persons with knowledge of the facts and allegations contained in your
Answer/Affirmative Defenses by providing the following information:

a. Name;
b. Residence Address; and
c. Brief summary of information that may be obtained from the person,

ANSWER:

Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION / CV 23 983953 /Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 / BATCH
3. Identify what “several allegations” you admit making with regal'd to the sixth
paragr aph of your Answer.

ANSWER:

4. Identify your malpractice insurance carrier.

ANSWER:

5. Identify all Cleveland Policer Officers who “believed the photos illustrated drug
activity and child abuse at the neighboring home” as you represent in your Answer.

ANSWER:

6. Identify the address which makes you “Perkin’s neighbor” as you allege in your
September 1,2023 Motion to Dismiss.

. ANSWER:

7. Identify by name, address, and phone number each individual you intend to call as
a lay witness at any trial of this matter.

ANSWER: -

8. Identify each exhibit or other demonstrative item that you intend to introduce as
evidence at any trial of this matter.

ANSWER:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

1. Admit that you never met L. Bryan Carr prior to the Litigation.

RESPONSE: .

2. Admit that you do not know L. Bryan Carr personally.

RESPONSE:

, 3 ■
Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION / CV 23 983953 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 / BATCH
3. Admit that L. Bryan Carr is an attorney licensed to practice law in Ohio.

RESPONSE:

4. Admit that in 2022 the residence known as 1120 East 67th Street, Cleveland, was
Robert Perkins’ home.

RESPONSE:

5. Admit that in your “Brief in Opposition to Motion for Amended Complaint” in the
Litigation you state that L. Bryan Carr “is deeply embroiled in protecting illegal drug sales, drug
use and child abuse.”

RESPONSE:

6. Admit you filed your “Brief in Opposition to Motion for Amended Complaint” with
the Court on August 25, 2022.

RESPONSE:

7. Admit that when L. Bryan Carr afforded you 24 hours to withdraw your August 25,
2022 Brief or he would bring a defamation suit against you, you responded: “You don’t have to
wait 24 hours.”

RESPONSE:

8. Admit in your Motion to Dismiss dated September 1, 2023 in this litigation, you
state that L. Bryan Can- supports “drug activity,” “drug dealing” and “other criminal activity” and
that L. Bryan Can protects and defends "drug activity, domestic violence and child abusers”

RESPONSE:

9. Admit on September 1,2023 you filed your Motion to Dismiss with the Court.

RESPONSE:

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OFTTOCUMENTS

1. A copy of all evidence of drug activity at 1116 East 67th Street, Cleveland, Ohio as
you allege/reference in your Answer and Motion to Dismiss.

RESPONSE:

4
Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION / CV 23 983953 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 / BATCH
2. A copy of all evidence of criminal activity at 1116 East 67th Street, Cleveland, Ohio
as you allege in your Answer.

RESPONSE:

3. A copy of all evidence of drug use at 1116 East 67th Street, Cleveland, Ohio as you
allege in your Answer,

RESPONSE:

4. A copy of all evidence of domestic violence at 1116 East 67th Street, Cleveland,
Ohio as you allege in your Answer.

RESPONSE:

5. A copy of all evidence of drug sales at 1116 East 67th Street, Cleveland, Ohio as
you allege in your Answer.

RESPONSE:

6. All communications and documents exchanged between you and the Cleveland
Police Department.

RESPONSE:

7. Any and all documents or tangible things identified in, relating to, or supporting,
your responses to these discovery requests or the affirmative defenses in your Answer.

RESPONSE:

8. A copy of all evidence of child abuse at 1116 East 67th Street, Cleveland, Ohio as
you allege in your Answer.

RESPONSE:

9. All “photos” of drug activity and domestic violence/child abuse that you represent
exist in your Answer (in response to Paragraph 8 of the Complaint).

RESPONSE:

5
Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION / CV 23 983953 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 / BATCH
10. All documents you rely upon in denying the allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s
Complaint.

RESPONSE;

11. All documents, records or other tangible things you anticipate or intend to introduce
into evidence or present at the trial in this case.

RESPONSE:

Respectfully submitted,

Zs/ L. Bryan Carr___________________
L. BRYAN CARR (0066649)
1392 S OM Center Road
Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124
PH: (440) 473-2277
FAX: (440) 473-2277
E-mail: carrlawfirm@aol.com
Attorney for the Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The foregoing was served by electronic mail this 18th day of October, 2023, to: Kevin
Cronin at: kevin.cronin.ohio@gmail.com and kevin@kevincronin.us.

ZsZ L. Bryan Carr_______
L. BRYAN CARR (0066649)
Attorney for the Plaintiff

6
Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION / CV 23 983953 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 / BATCH
AOL Mail - Re: Can - Cronin https://mail.aol.coni/d/list/refeiTei=oldMail&folders=l&accountIds- ...

Re: Carr - Cronin

From: Kevin Cronin (kevin.cronin.ohio@gmail.com)

To: carrlawfirm@aol.com
Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 04:34 PM EST

Notice filed today.
Happy holiday weekend.

Kevin Cronin, Attorney at Law
The Brown Hoist Building
4403 Saint Clair Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44103-1125
kevincronin.us
League of American Bicyclists - League Certified Bicycling Instructor (LCI) #1448

Ph: 216.377.0615 or 216.374.7578
Fx: 216.881.3928 '

On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:57 AM Kevin Cronin wrote:
No thank you, I don't consider that much of a compromise. You were wrong to file and wrong to think your
effort was worth anything, it was nothing but legal bullying. I did some research and I understand we are not
eligible for Bar complaint resolution as long as there is a court case. Please dismiss the case and I will agree
to go that route as the Court recommended. You are at risk of seeing your reputation deteriorate. During the
court discussion you raised the issue of your father and legacy. I didn't know him, I don't know you but your
reputation, and his, is ar risk '

Ph: 216.377.0615 or 216.374.7578
Fx: 216.881.3928

On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 11:22 AM Bryan Carr wrote:
! Mr. Cronin,

j Given the Court's comments yesterday, and the spirit of compromise, please be
; advised that I will dismiss the litigation, With Prejudice, —’ ' - -

■ Thank You,

■ Bryan Carr

Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION / CV 23 983953 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 /BATCH

1 of 2
AOL Mail - Re: Can- - Cronin https://maii.aol.com/d/list/refeiTer=oldMail&folders=l£accountIds=...

L, BRYAN CARR, ESQ.
L. Bryan Carr Co., L.P. A.
1392 SOM Center Road
Mayfield Heights, OH 44124
(440) 473-2277-phone
(440) 473-0166 - facsimile

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: THE INFORMATION IN THIS E-MAIL MESSA GE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS IS SENT B T AN
ATTORNEY OR HIS/HER AGENT AND IS INTENDED TO BE CONFIDENTIAL AND FOR THE USE OF ONLY THE
INTENDED RECIPIENT. THE INFORMATION MAY BE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE, WORK
PRODUCT IMMUNITY OR OTHER LEGAL RULES. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSA GE IS NOT THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT, YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT RETENTION, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OFTHIS
E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

IF YO U RECEIVE THIS EMAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY RETURN E-MAIL OR BY
TELEPHONE AT (440) 473-2277 AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE. THANK YOU.

Cronin Responses to Carr Discovery (11 22 23J.pdf
187.9kB
Notice of Sending of Discovery (11 22 23).pdf
104.5kB

Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION / CV 23 983953 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 / BATCH

2 of 2 11/27/2023, 8:19 AM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

L. BRYAN CARR CASE NO. CV-23-983953

Plaintiff, JUDGE NANCY A. FUERST

v. CRONIN'S ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY

KEVIN CRONIN

Defendant.

Cronin responds to Attorney Carr's request for discovery.

INTERROGATORIES

1. State the name and residence address of each answering these interrogatories,
and if more than one person is listed, list the interrogatories each person assisted in answering.

ANSWER: Kevin Cronin, Address of Record: The Brown Hoist Building, 4403 St. Clair Avenue,
Cleveland, Ohio 44103

2. Identify all persons with knowledge of the facts and allegations contained in your
Answer/Affirmative Defenses by providing the following information:

ANSWER: Objection. .

Ohio case law and the Ohio Supreme Court establish that privilege provides absolute immunity
to parties, witnesses, lawyers, and judges from future lawsuits for statements made during and
relevant to judicial proceedings. Erie Cty. Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Crecelius, 122 Ohio St. 210, 171
N.E. 97 (1930), syllabus; Willitzer v. McCloud, 6 Ohio St.3d 447, 448, 453 N.E.2d 693 (1983);
Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229, 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), syllabus; Hecht v. Levin, 66 Ohio
St.3d 458, 460, 613 N.E.2d 585 (1993).

"Thus, we hold that as a matter of public policy, under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a
judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading
does not state a cause of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some
reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears." Surace v. Wuliger 25 Ohio St.
3d 229 (1986). (emphasis added).
3. Identify what "several allegations" you admit making with regard to the sixth
paragraph of your Answer.

ANSWER: Objection.

Ohio case law and the Ohio Supreme Court establish that privilege provides absolute Immunity
to parties, witnesses, lawyers, and judges from future lawsuits for statements made during and
relevant to judicial proceedings. Erie Cty. Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Crecelius, 122 Ohio St. 210, 171
N.E. 97 (1930), syllabus; Willitzer v. McCloud, 6 Ohio St.3d 447, 448, 453 N.E.2d 693 (1983);
Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229, 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), syllabus; Hecht v. Levin, 66 Ohio
St.3d 458, 460, 613 N.E.2d 585 (1993).

4. Identify your malpractice insurance carrier.

ANSWER: Objection.

5. Identify all Cleveland Policer Officers who "believed the photos illustrated drug
activity and child abuse at the neighboring home" as you represent in your Answer.

ANSWER: Objection.

• 2

Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION I CV 23 983953 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 / BATCH
Ohio case law and the Ohio Supreme Court establish that privilege provides absolute immunity
to parties, witnesses, lawyers, and judges from future lawsuits for statements made during and
relevant to judicial proceedings, Erie Cty. Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Crecelius, 122 Ohio St. 210, 171
N.E. 97 (1930), syllabus; Willitzer v. McCloud, 6 Ohio St.3d 447, 448, 453 N.E.2d 693 (1983);
Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229, 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), syllabus; Hecht v. Levin, 66 Ohio
St.3d 458, 460, 613 N.E.2d 585 (1993).

6. Identify the address which makes you "Perkin's neighbor" as you allege in your
September 1, 2023 Motion to Dismiss.

ANSWER: Objection.

■ 7. Identify by name, address, and phone number each individual you intend to call
as a lay witness at any trial of this matter.

ANSWER: Objection.

Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION / CV 23 983953 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 / BATCH
N.E. 97 (1930), syllabus; Willitzer v. McCloud, 6 Ohio St.3d 447, 448, 453 N.E.2d 693 (1983);
Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229, 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), syllabus; Hecht v. Levin, 66 Ohio
St.3d 458, 460, 613 N.E.2d 585 (1993).

8. Identify each exhibit or other demonstrative item that you intend to introduce as
evidence at any trial of this matter.

ANSWER: Objection.

Ohio case law and the Ohio Supreme Court establish that privilege provides absolute immunity
to parties, witnesses, lawyers, and judges from future lawsuits for statements made during and
relevant to judicial proceedings. Erie Cty, Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Crecelius, 122 Ohio St. 210, 171
N.E. 97 (1930), syllabus; Willitzer v. McCloud, 6 Ohio St.3d 447, 448, 453 N.E.2d 693 (1983);
Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229, 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), syllabus; Hecht v. Levin, 66 Ohio
St.3d 458,460, 613 N.E.2d 585 (1993).

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

1. Admit that you never met L. Bryan Carr prior to the Litigation.

RESPONSE: Objection.

Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION I CV 23 983953 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 / BATCH
"Thus, we hold that as a matter of public policy, under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a
judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading
does not state a cause of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some
reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears." Surace v. Wuliger 25 Ohio St.
3d 229 (1986), (emphasis added).

2. Admit that you do not know L. Bryan Carr personally.

RESPONSE: Objection.

"Thus, we hold that as a matter of public policy, under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a
judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading
does not state a cause of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some
‘ reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears." Surace v, Wuliger 25 Ohio St.
3d 229 (1986). (emphasis added).

3. Admit that L. Bryan Carr is an attorney licensed to practice law in Ohio.

RESPONSE: Objection.

Ohio case law and the Ohio Supreme Court establish that privilege provides absolute immunity
to parties, witnesses, lawyers, and judges from future lawsuits for statements made during and
relevant to judicial proceedings. Erie Cty. Farmers' Ins. Co. y. Crecelius, 122 Ohio St. 210, 171
N.E. 97 (1930), syllabus; Willitzer v. McCloud, 6 Ohio St.3d 447, 448, 453 N.E.2d 693 (1983);
Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229, 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), syllabus; Hecht v. Levin, 66 Ohio
St.3d 458, 460, 613 N.E.2d 585 (1993).

"Thus, we hold that as a matter of public policy, under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a
judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading
does not state a cause, of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some
reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears." Surace v. Wuliger 25 Ohio St.
3d 229 (1986). (emphasis added).

Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION / CV 23 983953 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 / BATCH
4. Admit that in 2022 the residence known as 1120 East 67th Street, Cleveland, was
Robert Perkins' home.

RESPONSE: Objection.

5. Admit that in your "Brief in Opposition to Motion for Amended Complaint" in the
Litigation you state that L, Bryan Carr "is deeply embroiled in protecting illegal drug sales, drug
use and child abuse."

RESPONSE: Objection.

6. Admit you filed your "Brief in Opposition to Motion for Amended Complaint" with
the Court on August 25, 2022.

Electronically Filed 11/27/2023 09:22 / MOTION / CV 23 983953 / Confirmation Nbr. 3025830 I BATCH
RESPONSE: Objection.

"Thus, we hold that as a matter of public policy, under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a
judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading
• does not state a cause of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some
reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears." Surace v. Wuliger 25 Ohio St.
3d 229 (1986). (emphasis added).

7. Admit that when L. Bryan Carr afforded you 24 hours to withdraw your August 25,
2022 Brief or he would bring a defamation suit against you, you responded: "You don't have to
wait 24 hours."

RESPONSE:
Objection.

Ohio case law and the Ohio Supreme Court establish that privilege provides absolute immunity
to parties, witnesses, lawyers, and judges from future lawsuits for statements made during and
relevant to judicial proceedings. Erie Cty. Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Crecelius, 122 Ohio St. 210, 171
. N.E. 97 (1930), syllabus; Willitzer v. McCloud, 6 Ohio St.3d 447, 448, 453 N.E.2d 693 (1983);
Surace v. Wuliger, 25 Ohio St.3d 229, 495 N.E.2d 939 (1986), syllabus; Hecht v. Levin, 66 Ohio
St.3d 458, 460, 613 N.E.2d 585 (1993).

"Thus, we hold that as a matter of public policy, under the doctrine of absolute privilege in a
. judicial proceeding, a claim alleging that a defamatory statement was made in a written pleading
does not state a cause of action where the allegedly defamatory statement bears some
reasonable relation to the judicial proceeding in which it appears." Surace v. Wuliger 25 Ohio St.
3d 229 (1986). (emphasis added).

8. Admit in your Motion to Dismiss dated September 1, 2023 in this litigation, you
state that L. Bryan Carr supports "drug activity," "drug dealing" and "other criminal activity" and
that L. Bryan Carr protects and defends "drug activity, domestic violenc

Case Info

Judge

NANCY A FUERST Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 27, 2023

Case Filing Date

August 15, 2023

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: L. BRYAN CARR vs. KEVIN CRONIN

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties