Relator seeks to have this Court hold Respondents in contempt even though
binding precedent instructs that the opposite is true. Rather than disregard the Court’s
October 23, 2018 Discovery Order, Respondents exercised their right to appeal on
November 1, 2018. And although Relator does not cite a similar case in which a stay was
required, should the Court find that it is, then Respondents move for an automatic stay
Respondents are not in contempt of the Court’s Discovery Order because they
have perfected an appeal of the Discovery Order to the First District. The effect of that
appeal is that the Court is temporarily deprived of jurisdiction over the order.
It is well settled that the common pleas court and the court of appeals
cannot assert jurisdiction simultaneously over matters on appeal. When a
notice of appeal is filed, it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and
divests the common pleas court of its control over the aspects of the case
involved in the appeal. Consequently, the trial court retains jurisdiction
over only those issues not directly related to the subject of the appeal.
Thus, the trial court is prohibited from taking any action that is
inconsistent with the appellate court's ability to review, affirm, modify, or
reverse the judgment being appealed.
{00272440-1}
Lambda Research v. Jacobs, 170 Ohio App.3d 750, 2007-Ohio-309, ¶ 21; see also State
ex rel. Elec. Classroom of Tomorrow v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, 129
Ohio St.3d 30, 2011-Ohio-626, ¶¶ 13, 15 (holding the trial court is divested of
jurisdiction over matters that are inconsistent with the reviewing court’s jurisdiction
even absent a stay). Here, Respondents are appealing the Discovery Order itself. Notice
of Appeal, filed Nov. 1, 2018. Until the case is remanded, this Court is without
the trial court denied a motion to quash a subpoena, and the party subject to the
subpoena appealed that decision and did not produce the contested documents. Id. at ¶¶
10-12. It does not appear that a motion for a stay was filed. When the party did not
produce documents while the appeal was pending, the subpoenaing party moved to
compel the production, and the trial court granted the motion to compel and threated to
hold the non-producing parties in contempt. Id. at ¶ 11. The First District heard the
appeal and held that “trial court had not authority to compel enforcement of the
subpoenas” and that the entry compelling production was a “legal nullity.” Id. at ¶ 22. In
other words, the First District held that once the appeal was perfected, “all matters
concerning [] entitlement to enforce the subpoenas” were before the First District, not
the trial court. Id. The exact same reasoning instructs that the Court presently has been
divested of jurisdiction to enforce the Discovery Order. Therefore, the Court should
The cases cited by Relator stand for nothing more than the general proposition
that sometimes a Court may retain jurisdiction to enforce judgments that are on appeal.
Motion at 2. What Relator fails to note is that the Court’s enforcement cannot be
{00272440-1}
inconsistent with appellate review. Here, any enforcement of the order is entirely
inconsistent with appellate review because it is the Discovery Order that Respondents
are appealing. Relator may also argue that the Court may act because there is a pending
Court precedent. State ex rel. Elec. Classroom of Tomorrow v. Cuyahoga County Court
of Common Pleas, 129 Ohio St.3d 30, 2011-Ohio-626, ¶ 15. Moreover, if Relator’s
motion is successful, then this Court will have jurisdiction over the Discovery Order. At
a minimum, and as a matter of judicial economy, this Court should refrain from
conducting any contempt hearing until the motion to dismiss in the First District is
resolved.
In sum, Respondents have not ignored the Court’s Discovery Order, nor do they
have any intent to act in contempt of the Court. Rather, Respondents have exercised
their right to appeal the Discovery Order and simply ask the Court to follow binding
First District and Ohio Supreme Court precedent by denying Relator’s Motion to Show
Cause.
jurisdiction to enforce the Discovery Order and that they are not in contempt of the
Court’s Order, Respondents are also entitled to a stay pending the appeal pursuant to
Rule 62(C) and respectfully request leave to move for that stay.
The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure provide an automatic stay for the government
{00272440-1}
is stayed, no bond, obligation or other security shall be required from the
appellant.
Civ.R. 62.
The Ohio Supreme Court more recently restated the rule: “Civ.R. 62 patently and
unambiguously imposes on the court of common pleas and its judges the duty to issue a
stay without a supersedeas bond upon an appeal and request for stay by a political
Common Pleas, 129 Ohio St.3d 30, 2011-Ohio-626, 950 N.E.2d 149, ¶29; see also State
ex rel. State Fire Marshal v. Curl¸87 Ohio St.3d 568, 571 (1999); State ex rel. Ocasek v.
Riley, 54 Ohio St.2d 488, 490, 377 N.E.2d 792 (1978) (trial court lacks discretion to
deny stay; holding evidentiary hearing on stay request was “inappropriate proceeding”).
As Respondents are entitled to a stay pending the appeal, Relator’s motion—in addition
Conclusion
Order. Rather, Respondents perfected their appeal to the First District, and, given the
binding precedent in this District, believed no further action was required. If the Court
disagrees, Respondents then respectfully move for an automatic stay pursuant to Rule
62(C).
Respectfully Submitted,
{00272440-1}
Peter J. Stackpole (0072103)
Chief Counsel - Litigation
Emily E. Woerner (0089349)
Assistant City Solicitor
Room 214, City Hall
801 Plum Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Phone: (513) 352-3307
Fax: (513) 352-1515
peter.stackpole@cincinnati-oh.gov
emily.woerner@cincinnati-oh.gov
Counsel for Respondents
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was filed and sent via electronic mail
Brian Shrive
Christopher Finney
FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
brian@finneylawfirm.com
chris@finneylawfirm.com
Attorneys for Relator Mark Miller
s/Emily E. Woerner
Emily E. Woerner (089349)
{00272440-1}