Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 1 of 27 PAGEID #: 17549 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION THE NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION : FOR THE HOMELESS, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : Case No. 2:06-CV-00896 : v. : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY : JON HUSTED, in his official capacity as : Secretary of the State of Ohio, et al., : : Defendants. : DEFENDANTS OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS AND DEFENDANTS COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS Despite attempting to designate portions of twenty discovery depositions, Plaintiffs cannot establish the prerequisites for admitting the deposition transcripts in this case. First, all depositions in this case have been discovery depositions, not trial depositions; and therefore, admitting such depositions at trial would unfairly prejudice the Defendants. Second, all but one deposition constitutes hearsay for which no exemption or exception applies. Third, nineteen of the twenty deponents are listed in Plaintiffs witness list, and the twentieth deponent is on Defendants witness list. As it appears that these deponents will be testifying at trial, admitting portions of their deposition transcripts would be needlessly cumulative. Therefore, Defendants respectfully ask that this Court exclude all of Plaintiffs depositions designations. In the alternative, if this Court permits some or all of Plaintiffs designations, Defendants submit specific objections and counter designations to Plaintiffs designations within those deposition transcripts. 1
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 2 of 27 PAGEID #: 17550 I. LAW AND ARGUMENT A. Plaintiffs Cannot Establish the Admissibility of the Deposition Transcripts. There are cases in which deposition transcripts are admissible, but this is not one of them. The depositions of Ken Terry, Jocelyn Bucaro,, Susan Bloom, Alicia Healy, Elizabeth Fulton, Bill Anthony, Zachary Manifold, Darlene Tompkins,, Catherine Overbeck,, Lavera Scott,, Carolyn Clark,, Paulette Hankins, Paula Sauter, Brian Sleeth, and the 30(b)(6) deposition of are inadmissible, and Plaintiffs cannot prove otherwise. See Doc. 558. 1. The depositions constitute hearsay for which no exemption or exception applies. In general, a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing, is not admissible if it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c); Fed. R. Evid. 802. Such out-of-court statements are inadmissible unless an exemption or exception set forth in the Federal Rules of Evidence or other rules adopted by the Supreme Court apply. Fed. R. Evid. 802. All of the deposition designations in question, except for the designations of, constitute hearsay statements for which no exemption or exception applies. a. The Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 801 contains two exemptions to the hearsay rules, but neither applies to the depositions of the county boards of election. The first exemption contemplates using a prior statement to impeach a witness who is at trial. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1). This Court s order specifically noted that the parties were not to designate portions of depositions to be used for impeachment purposes. See Doc. 460 at 4 n.1. Thus, this exemption is inapplicable to Plaintiffs designations. The second exemption applies only to statements of the opposing party. Fed. R. 2
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 3 of 27 PAGEID #: 17551 Evid. 801(d)(2). As none of the boards of election are defendants in this case, this exemption also does not apply. Rule 803 details twenty-three exceptions to the hearsay rule; however, none of these exceptions are applicable to the depositions of the county deponents. See generally Fed. R. Evid. 803. Rule 804 contemplates situations in which the declarant is unavailable. Fed. R. Evid. 804. Under the rule, a declarant is unavailable in the following situations: (1) the court rules that a privilege applies; (2) the declarant refuses to testify despite a court order; (3) the declarant testifies that he cannot remember the subject matter; (4) the declarant is dead, infirm, ill, or mentally ill; and (5) the statement s proponent has been unable to procure the declarant s attendance at trial. Id. 804(a). None of the county deponents are unavailable pursuant to this Rule. There is no court order regarding privilege. None of the deponents have refused to testify, have testified to a lack of memory, or are dead, infirm, ill, or mentally ill. Lastly, the Plaintiffs have not attempted, but failed, to procure any of the deponents attendance at the trial. Thus, because none of the deponents are unavailable pursuant to Rule 804, the exceptions in this Rule do not apply to the county depositions. Accordingly, there are no exemptions or exceptions within the Federal Rules of Evidence that would permit Plaintiffs to introduce the hearsay statements of the nineteen county boards or election that are contained within Plaintiffs deposition designations. b. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow deposition testimony to be used at trial under certain, specific circumstances; none of which apply at this time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(1). The only possible circumstance that could apply to some of the deposition designations relates to 3
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 4 of 27 PAGEID #: 17552 witness unavailability. See id. 32(a)(2)-(8). Under Rule 32, a witness is presumed unavailable if the witness is more than 100 miles from the place of hearing or trial. Id. 32(a)(4)(B). There is no question that this rule does not apply to thirteen of the deponents contained within Plaintiffs deposition designations. The following deponents are within 100 miles of this Court, and thus, clearly available under Rule 32(a)(4)(B): Ken Terry, Allen County; Jocelyn Bucaro, Butler County;, Delaware County; Susan Bloom, Fairfield County; Alicia Healy, Franklin County; Elizabeth Fulton, Franklin County; Bill Anthony, Franklin County; Zachary Manifold, Franklin County; Darlene Tompkins, Franklin County;, Montgomery County; Carolyn Clark, Montgomery County; Paulette Hankins, Richland County; and Brian Sleeth, Warren County. Another witness, of Hamilton County, is available for trial and will be called by the Defendants. 1 For these fourteen deponents, there is unquestionably no exception or exemption to the hearsay rule. Although the remaining five county deponents,, Lavera Scott,, and Paula Sauter are more than 100 miles from the Court, it does not appear at this time that any of these witnesses are unavailable. In fact, all five of these county officials are included on Plaintiffs witness list and will presumably be called at trial. See doc. 560. Therefore, as it appears these individuals are available, Rule 32 should not be used to permit the admission of their hearsay statements into evidence. 1 Although Ms. Poland s driving distance would be just over 100 miles, courts in this circuit and others measure the mileage by a straight line on the map not the shortest route of travel. See McDaniel v. BSN Medical, Inc., No. 4:07CV-26-M, 2010 WL 2464970, at *2 (W.D. Ky. June 15, 2010) (citing Senzarin v. Abbott Severance Pay Plan for Employers of KOS Pharm., F. App x 636(6th Cir. 2010); Hill v. Equitable Bank, Nat. Ass n, 115 F.R.D. 184, 186 (D. Del. 1987). Using the straight-line approach, Ms. Poland is not more than 100 miles from the Court. However, the distance is not relevant at this time because Ms. Poland is available and will be testifying at trial; and thus, Rule 32 s presumption of unavailability is not applicable. 4
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 5 of 27 PAGEID #: 17553 Accordingly, because there is no applicable exemption or exception to the hearsay rule that would permit the admission of the county officials out-of-court statements, Defendants respectfully request that this Court exclude Plaintiffs deposition designations for the nineteen county officials. 2. The depositions will be needlessly cumulative. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence, [t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following:... needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403. All nineteen county officials in Plaintiffs deposition designations are listed in Plaintiffs witness list. Compare doc. 588 with doc. 560. Presumably then, these nineteen deponents will be witnesses at trial, making their deposition testimony needlessly cumulative. Plaintiffs are able to ask the same questions, and if different answers are provided, Plaintiffs can use the deposition testimony to impeach the witnesses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(2) ( Any party may use a deposition to contradict or impach they testimony given by the deponent as a witness.... ). Moreover, Defendants intend to call during trial. Likewise, admitting his deposition testimony also will be needlessly cumulative. Plaintiffs will have an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Damschroder, and if his testimony contradicts his deposition testimony, can use his deposition to impeach him at that time. See id., see also Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A). Therefore, the admission of any of these deponents depositions when they will be called at trial is needlessly cumulative, and this Court should exclude such cumulative evidence. 5
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 6 of 27 PAGEID #: 17554 3. The depositions were not designated as trial depositions. There is an established distinction between a trial deposition to preserve testimony and a discovery deposition. Courts in this circuit generally recognize the need to treat de bene esse [(trial)] depositions differently in certain respects than those of discovery depositions. Marmelshtein v. City of Southfield, No. 07-CV-15063, 2010 WL 4226667, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2010). For example, in Burkett v. Hymen Lippett, P.C., Inc., Nos. 05-72110, 05-72171, 05-72221, 2008 WL 1741875 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 11, 2008), the court ruled that an order setting a discovery cutoff date did not bar a party from conducting a trial deposition after discovery closed. Further, in Rayco Mfg. Inc. v. Deutz Corp., No. 5:08 CV 00074, 2010 WL 183866, at *4 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2010), the court stated that [t]rial depositions (also known as preservation depositions or de bene esse depositions ) are not treated as part of the discovery process to which the Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(i) ten-per-side deposition limit applies. Although there originally was some mention of making these trial depositions, the eventual understanding of the parties was that all of these depositions would be discovery, not trial, depositions, and no further communications on this issue were made by the Plaintiffs. See Ex. A. Importantly, had these depositions been designated as trial depositions, Defendants would have conducted the depositions in an entirely different manner and elicited much more testimony on cross-examination. It is patently unfair to prejudice Defendants by giving tacit agreement that these depositions were discovery depositions and then only later switch the label to trial testimony after the opportunity to fully examine each witness as they would in a trial-context has passed. Therefore, for this reason alone, this Court should exclude Plaintiffs deposition designations. 6
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 7 of 27 PAGEID #: 17555 B. Plaintiffs Specific Deposition Designations Contain Inadmissible Statements. In the event that this Court admits any or all of the deposition transcripts, Defendants submit the following objections to the specific designations within those deposition transcripts. DEPOSITION PAGE AND LINE OBJECTION Allen County BOE 14:9-14:15 Vague; Not Relevant; Lack of Foundation Allen County BOE 14:17-14:23 Vague; Not Relevant; Lack of Foundation Allen County BOE 14:25-15:8 Vague; Not Relevant; Lack of Foundation Allen County BOE 16:21-17:7 Lack of Foundation Allen County BOE 17:9-17:18 Calls for Speculation; Vague Allen County BOE 18:2-18:8 Calls for Speculation; Vague Allen County BOE 18:24-19:13 Vague; Calls for Speculation Allen County BOE 46:17-46:23 Calls for Speculation Allen County BOE 47:3-47:7 Calls for Speculation Allen County BOE 20:19-23:16 Not Relevant Allen County BOE 21:2-21:8 Calls for Speculation Allen County BOE 49:5-49:11 Calls for Speculation Allen County BOE 23:18-24:15 Not Relevant Allen County BOE 23:25-24:11 Calls for Speculation; Vague Allen County BOE 51:8-52:2 Not Relevant Allen County BOE 51:18-52:2 Calls for Speculation Allen County BOE 29:6-29:12 Calls for Speculation 7
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 8 of 27 PAGEID #: 17556 Allen County BOE 30:23-31:2 Calls for Speculation Allen County BOE 33:19-34:13 Not Relevant Allen County BOE 34:14-34:23 Calls for Speculation; Vague Allen County BOE 54:1-57:23 Not Relevant Allen County BOE 54:25-55:17 Vague Allen County BOE 56:24-57:4 Calls for Speculation Allen County BOE 58:7-58:10 Not Relevant Allen County BOE 36:3-36:8 Calls for Speculation Allen County BOE 36:14-36:20 Calls for Speculation Allen County BOE 40:22-41:12 Calls for Speculation Butler County BOE 8:16-9:1 Not Relevant Butler County BOE 10:15-11:10 Not Relevant Butler County BOE 15:2-16:3 Not Relevant Butler County BOE 16:4-22 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Butler County BOE 16:23-17:9 Not Relevant Butler County BOE 17:10-24 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Butler County BOE 18:1-13 Not Relevant Butler County BOE 18:21-19:20 Not Relevant Butler County BOE 28:11-19 Calls for Speculation Butler County BOE 29:2-7 Calls for Speculation Butler County BOE 29:14-24 Not Relevant 8
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 9 of 27 PAGEID #: 17557 Butler County BOE 29:25-30:4 Calls for Speculation Butler County BOE 30:8-11 Calls for Speculation Butler County BOE 37:14-21 Calls for Speculation Butler County BOE 38:1-15 Calls for Speculation Butler County BOE 38:16-39:1 Not Relevant Butler County BOE 33:12-15 Calls for Speculation Butler County BOE 14:22-15:1 Calls for Speculation Butler County BOE 19:24-20:6 Calls for Speculation; Not Relevant Butler County BOE 20:11-22:5 Calls for Speculation; Not Relevant Butler County BOE 22:5-25:20 Not Relevant Butler County BOE 26:11-27:5 Not Relevant Butler County BOE 33:18-36:23 Not Relevant Butler County BOE 42:24-43:22 Not Relevant Butler County BOE 43:23-44:6 Calls for Speculation; Not Relevant Butler County BOE 44:7-25 Not Relevant Butler County BOE 45:1-46:6 Calls for Speculation; Not Relevant Butler County BOE 46:7-47:12 Not Relevant Butler County BOE 47:17-49:24 Not Relevant Delaware County BOE 18:25-19:6 Vague; Calls for Speculation Delaware County BOE 22:16-23 Calls for Speculation Delaware County BOE 25:7-26:4 Calls for Speculation 9
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 10 of 27 PAGEID #: 17558 Delaware County BOE 27:14-28:1 Vague; Compound Question Delaware County BOE 28:9-30:9 Calls for Speculation Delaware County BOE 31:12-31:20 Calls for Speculation Delaware County BOE 32:1-32:18 Vague; Calls for Speculation Delaware County BOE 35:21-36:2 Calls for Speculation Delaware County BOE 36:4-36:14 Compound Question; Calls for Speculation Delaware County BOE 45:21-46:2 Calls for Speculation Delaware County BOE 46:23-47:4 Calls for Speculation Delaware County BOE 47:12-47:22 Vague; Calls for Speculation; Mischaracterizes Testimony Delaware County BOE 49:7-50:4 Calls for Speculation Delaware County BOE 50:8-50:21 Vague; Calls for Speculation Delaware County BOE 56:4-57:10 Not Relevant Delaware County BOE 58:6-62:15 Not Relevant Delaware County BOE 58:6-59:2 Calls for Speculation Delaware County BOE 62:5-62:15 Calls for Speculation; Lack of Foundation Delaware County BOE 64:15-70:3 Not Relevant Delaware County BOE 65:8-66:2 Vague; Compound Question; Calls for Speculation; asked and answered Delaware County BOE 66:11-66:17 Vague; Calls for Speculation Delaware County BOE 67:7-68:4 Vague; Confusing Question; Compound Question Delaware County BOE 68:5-68:12 Calls for Speculation; Vague; Compound Question Delaware County BOE 73:16-74:8 Not Relevant; Vague; Compound Question; Lack of Foundation 10
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 11 of 27 PAGEID #: 17559 Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 23:13-23:18 Calls for Speculation Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 25:14-26:3 Mischaracterizes Testimony Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 27:18-29:3 Calls for Speculation Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 34:14-36:1 Not Relevant Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 35:3-36:1 Calls for Speculation Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 37:1-37:20 Not Relevant Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 37:1-37:14 Calls for Speculation Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 38:15-41:10 Not Relevant Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 45:16-47:5 Not Relevant Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 45:16-46:15 Calls for Speculation Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 47:13-24; 48:6-14 Vague; Calls for Speculation Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 48:22-49:21 Calls for Speculation Alica B. Healy Franklin County BOE 6:25-9:23 Not Relevant Alica B. Healy Franklin County BOE 10:12-18 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation; Vague Alica B. Healy Franklin County BOE 10:20-11:7 Not Relevant; Vague Alica B. Healy Franklin County BOE 11:8-12:1 Not Relevant; Vague Alica B. Healy Franklin County BOE 13:16-14:9 Not Relevant Alica B. Healy Franklin County BOE 14:10-14 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Alica B. Healy Franklin County BOE 14:15-17:19 Not Relevant Alica B. Healy Franklin County BOE 19:23-21:24 Not Relevant Alica B. Healy Franklin County BOE 19:9-12 Calls for Speculation 11
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 12 of 27 PAGEID #: 17560 Alica B. Healy Franklin County BOE 22:19-25:3 Not Relevant Franklin County BOE 13:20-20:22 Not Relevant Franklin County BOE 22:4-11 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Franklin County BOE 22:13-23:14 Not Relevant Franklin County BOE 27:22-28:1 Calls for Speculation Franklin County BOE 28:2-10 Not Relevant Franklin County BOE 30:12-31:2 Not Relevant Franklin County BOE 33:25-34:5 Calls for Speculation Franklin County BOE 35:11-36:1 Not Relevant Franklin County BOE 36:2-22 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Franklin County BOE 36:24-37:23 Not Relevant Franklin County BOE 37:25-38:5 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Franklin County BOE 38:10-40:4 Not Relevant Franklin County BOE 40:23-41:2 Calls for Speculation Franklin County BOE 46:6-18 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Franklin County BOE 47:19-48:2 Calls for Speculation Franklin County BOE 49:16-50:2 Calls for Speculation Franklin County BOE 50:3-7 Not Relevant Zachary E. Manifold Franklin County BOE 19:14-21 Not Relevant Zachary E. Manifold Franklin County BOE 11:2-17:20 Not Relevant Zachary E. Manifold Franklin County BOE 19:21-20:13 Not Relevant 12
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 13 of 27 PAGEID #: 17561 Zachary E. Manifold Franklin County BOE 22:9-23:15 Not Relevant Zachary E. Manifold Franklin County BOE 23:16-23:24 Not Relevant; Vague M. Darlene Tompkins Franklin County BOE 10:2-13:10 Not Relevant M. Darlene Tompkins Franklin County BOE 19:9-23:10 Not Relevant M. Darlene Tompkins Franklin County BOE 25:12-18 Calls for Speculation M. Darlene Tompkins Franklin County BOE 26:13-27:5 Calls for Speculation M. Darlene Tompkins Franklin County BOE 28:12-29:4 Calls for Speculation Hamilton County BOE 45:20-24 Calls for Speculation Hamilton County BOE 21:20-22:16 Not Relevant Hamilton County BOE 22:17-21 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Hamilton County BOE 22:22-23:10 Not Relevant Hamilton County BOE 51:25-52:15 Not Relevant Hamilton County BOE 31:17-22 Not Relevant Hamilton County BOE 79:14-83:1 Not Relevant Hamilton County BOE 47:11-498 Calls for Speculation Hamilton County BOE 87:15-22 Calls for Speculation Hamilton County BOE 94:21-25 Calls for Speculation Hamilton County BOE 96:24-97:21 Calls for Speculation Hamilton County BOE 98:3-100:9 Calls for Speculation Hamilton County BOE 100:24-102:2 Calls for Speculation Hamilton County BOE 103:3-104:4 Calls for Speculation 13
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 14 of 27 PAGEID #: 17562 Hamilton County BOE 53:6-20 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Hamilton County BOE 53:21-58:8 Not Relevant Hamilton County BOE 58:9-14 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Hamilton County BOE 58:15-25 Not Relevant Hamilton County BOE 59:1-13 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Hamilton County BOE 59:14-61:13 Not Relevant Hamilton County BOE 61:14-64:12 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Hamilton County BOE 64:13-65:1 Not Relevant Hamilton County BOE 73:17-78:6 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Hamilton County BOE 104:25-114:17 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Hamilton County BOE 66:1-67:23 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Hamilton County BOE 68:14-69:12 Not Relevant Hamilton County BOE 70:5-71:23 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Hamilton County BOE 84:11-21 Calls for Speculation Lawrence County BOE 13:10-14:7 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Lawrence County BOE 14:8-15:13 Not Relevant Lawrence County BOE 15:14-22 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Lawrence County BOE 23:13-24:3 Calls for Speculation Lawrence County BOE 24:24-25:6 Calls for Speculation Lawrence County BOE 26:18-28:21 Calls for Speculation Lawrence County BOE 31:3-13 Calls for Speculation 14
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 15 of 27 PAGEID #: 17563 Lawrence County BOE 31:14-19 Calls for Speculation Lawrence County BOE 33:10-24 Calls for Speculation Lawrence County BOE 36:25-38:2 Calls for Speculation Lawrence County BOE 38:17-40:11 Not Relevant Lawrence County BOE 40:12-16 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Lawrence County BOE 40:17-42:24 Not Relevant Lawrence County BOE 42:25-47:2 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Lawrence County BOE 48:4-50:4 Calls for Speculation Lorain County BOE 10:18-11:14 Vague Lorain County BOE 11:15-11:23 Mischaracterizes Testimony Lorain County BOE 18:1-18:5 Calls for Speculation Lorain County BOE 19:3-21:15 Calls for Speculation Lorain County BOE 25:8-34:12 Not Relevant Lorain County BOE 25:8-25:18 Vague; Calls for Speculation Lorain County BOE 25:24-27:7 Calls for Speculation Lorain County BOE 28:20-29:2 Calls for Speculation Lorain County BOE 30:23-31:8 Calls for Speculation Lorain County BOE 31:9-32:13 Calls for Speculation Lorain County BOE 38:4-40:1 Not Relevant Lorain County BOE 38:9-38:21 Calls for Speculation Lorain County BOE 39:9-39:21 Calls for Speculation 15
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 16 of 27 PAGEID #: 17564 Lorain County BOE 40:2-43:1 Not Relevant Lorain County BOE 40:11-41:3 Calls for Speculation Lorain County BOE 43:9-49:14 Not Relevant Lorain County BOE 44:13-44:18 Calls for Speculation Lorain County BOE 45:13-45:14 Lack of Foundation; Mischaracterizes Testimony Lorain County BOE 46:14-47:10 Calls for Speculation Lorain County BOE 47:11-47:22 Vague; Compound Question; Calls for Speculation Lorain County BOE 48:17-49:2 Calls for Speculation Lorain County BOE 49:7-49:14 Vague; Compound Question Calls for Speculation Lorain County BOE 74:20-76:17 DOES NOT EXIST Lorain County BOE 79:12-80:13 DOES NOT EXIST Lavera Scott Lucas County BOE 23:19-24 Calls for Speculation Lavera Scott Lucas County BOE 74:20-76:17 Not Relevant Lavera Scott Lucas County BOE 42:3-43:17 Not Relevant Lavera Scott Lucas County BOE 43:18-44:11 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Lavera Scott Lucas County BOE 44:12-46:22 Not Relevant Lavera Scott Lucas County BOE 46:23-47:8 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Lavera Scott Lucas County BOE 47:9-48:10 Not Relevant Lavera Scott Lucas County BOE 48:11-17 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Lavera Scott Lucas County BOE 48:18-22 Not Relevant Lavera Scott Lucas County BOE 48:23-49:8 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation 16
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 17 of 27 PAGEID #: 17565 Lavera Scott Lucas County BOE 49:10-50:6 Not Relevant Montgomery County BOE 14:2-16:6 Not Relevant Montgomery County BOE 24:15-25:18 Not Relevant Montgomery County BOE 25:19-26:5 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Montgomery County BOE 26:6-27:9 Not Relevant Montgomery County BOE 27:10-17 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Montgomery County BOE 27:18-29:14 Not Relevant Montgomery County BOE 29:15-18 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Montgomery County BOE 29:19-30:7 Not Relevant Montgomery County BOE 30:7-24 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Montgomery County BOE 34:16-17 Calls for Speculation Montgomery County BOE 38:21-39:3 Calls for Speculation Montgomery County BOE 39:22-25 Calls for Speculation Montgomery County BOE 40:1-5 Not Relevant Montgomery County BOE 46:20-47:16 Calls for Speculation; Beyond the Scope of the Subpoena; Not Relevant Montgomery County BOE 47:17-48:5 Beyond the Scope of the Subpoena; Not Relevant Montgomery County BOE 48:6-50:11 Not Relevant Montgomery County BOE 50:12-53:1 Not Relevant Montgomery County BOE 54:1-19 Beyond the Scope of the Subpoena Montgomery County BOE 54:20-56:4 Calls for Speculation Carolyn Clark Montgomery County 5:14-6:24 Not Relevant 17
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 18 of 27 PAGEID #: 17566 Carolyn Clark Montgomery County 7:14-17 Calls for Speculation Carolyn Clark Montgomery County 7:8-11:7 Not Relevant Carolyn Clark Montgomery County 11:8-15 Calls for Speculation Carolyn Clark Montgomery County 11:16-25 Not Relevant Carolyn Clark Montgomery County 15:16-22 Calls for Speculation Stark County BOE 19:20-20:18 Calls for Speculation Stark County BOE 21:6-22 Calls for Speculation Stark County BOE 23:22-24:17 Not Relevant Stark County BOE 24:18-26:20 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Stark County BOE 26:21-27:13 Not Relevant Stark County BOE 27:14-29:1 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Stark County BOE 29:11-14 Not Relevant Stark County BOE 29:15-30:18 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Stark County BOE 30:19-24 Not Relevant Stark County BOE 30:25-32:5 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Stark County BOE 32:6-34:4 Not Relevant Stark County BOE 34:5-20 Not Relevant Stark County BOE 34:21-38:16 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Stark County BOE 38:17-39:16 Not Relevant Stark County BOE 39:17-40:18 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Stark County BOE 43:16-46:15 Calls for Speculation 18
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 19 of 27 PAGEID #: 17567 Stark County BOE 49:19-22 Not Relevant Stark County BOE 50:1-3 Not Relevant Paulette Hankins Richland County BOE 19:11-20:3 Not Relevant; Beyond the Scope of the Subpoena Paulette Hankins Richland County BOE 20:15-21 Not Relevant; Beyond the Scope of the Subpoena Paulette Hankins Richland County BOE 25:20-27:5 Not Relevant Paulette Hankins Richland County BOE 27:6-28:3 Not Relevant; Beyond the Scope of the Subpoena Paulette Hankins Richland County BOE 28:5-33:11 Not Relevant Paulette Hankins Richland County BOE 33:12-34:6 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Paulette Hankins Richland County BOE 34:8-36:16 Not Relevant Paulette Hankins Richland County BOE 37:21-38:12 Calls for Speculation Paulette Hankins Richland County BOE 38:16-39:7 Calls for Speculation Paulette Hankins Richland County BOE 39:8-19 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Paula Sauter Summit County BOE 15:15-16:7 Calls for Speculation Paula Sauter Summit County BOE 17:4-25 Calls for Speculation Paula Sauter Summit County BOE 18:4-7 Calls for Speculation Paula Sauter Summit County BOE 48:19-24 Calls for Speculation Paula Sauter Summit County BOE 21:5-25:2 Not Relevant Paula Sauter Summit County BOE 26:2-32:9 Not Relevant Paula Sauter Summit County BOE 37:16-38:3 Not Relevant Paula Sauter Summit County BOE 25:3-26:1 Not Relevant Paula Sauter Summit County BOE 64:14-66:8 Not Relevant 19
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 20 of 27 PAGEID #: 17568 Paula Sauter Summit County BOE 41:11-15 Calls for Speculation Paula Sauter Summit County BOE 42:10-15 Calls for Speculation Paula Sauter Summit County BOE 39:8-40:6 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Paula Sauter Summit County BOE 54:16-56:21 Not Relevant Brian K. Sleeth Warren County BOE 60:3-13 Calls for Speculation Brian K. Sleeth Warren County BOE 44:4-47:4 Not Relevant Brian K. Sleeth Warren County BOE 47:8-56:19 Not Relevant Brian K. Sleeth Warren County BOE 60:15-61:1 Not Relevant Office 20:4-23 Calls for a Legal Conclusion; Beyond the Scope of 30(b)(6) Office 44:13-22 Not Relevant Office 54:25-55:4 Mischaracterizes Testimony Office 58:24-59:15 Calls for Speculation Office 59:17-60:8 Office 60:10-61:18 Calls for Speculation; Beyond the Scope of 30(b)(6) Calls for Speculation; Beyond the Scope of 30(b)(6) Office 61:19-62:10 Calls for Speculation Office 72:22-74:1 Beyond the Scope of 30(b)(6) Office 83:16-85:24 Not Relevant 20
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 21 of 27 PAGEID #: 17569 Office 85:25-87:25 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Office 88:1-89:9 Not Relevant Office 89:11-91:12 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Office 92:12-94:11 Not Relevant Office 102:25-103:14 Calls for Speculation; Beyond the Scope of 30(b)(6); Calls for a Legal Conclusion Office 114:6-115:7 Calls for a Legal Conclusion Office 115:8-25 Calls for a Legal Conclusion; Beyond the Scope of 30(b)(6) Office 116:1-20 Calls for a Legal Conclusion Office 116:21-117:9 Office 117:11-21 Calls for a Legal Conclusion; Beyond the Scope of 30(b)(6); Asked and Answered Calls for Speculation; Beyond the Scope of 30(b)(6) Office 127:6-18 Hearsay Office 131:7-22 Hearsay Office 143:21-144:7 Hearsay Office 148:5-21 Beyond the Scope of 30(b)(6) Office 149:8-150:1 Beyond the Scope of 30(b)(6) 21
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 22 of 27 PAGEID #: 17570 Office 169:16-25 Calls for a Legal Conclusion; Beyond the Scope of 30(b)(6) Office 170:2-11 Calls for Speculation Office 171:5-17 Calls for a Legal Conclusion Office 172:20-173:12 Calls for a Legal Conclusion Office 173:17-174:7 Calls for a Legal Conclusion Office 174:16-21 Calls for a Legal Conclusion Office 191:4-201:8 Beyond the Scope of 30(b)(6); Not Relevant Office 201:24-202:22 Not Relevant; Calls for Speculation Office 206:5-207:1 Calls for Speculation; Not Relevant Office 207:25-209:23 Mischaracterizes Testimony Office 229:1-232:7 Not Relevant; Beyond Scope of 30(b)(6) Office 232:20-233:8 Not Relevant; Beyond Scope of 30(b)(6) Office 247:9-19 Calls for Speculation; Calls for a Legal Conclusion Office 248:5-249:14 Calls for a Legal Conclusion Office 252:1-20 Beyond Scope of 30(b)(6) 22
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 23 of 27 PAGEID #: 17571 Office 256:22-260:14 Not Relevant C. Defendants Counter-Designations If this Court admits any of Plaintiffs deposition designations, then Defendants respectfully ask this Court to admit Defendants deposition designations, which are detailed below. Any exception for admitting the county officials depositions would apply equally to Defendants. As to the 30(b)(6) depositions of Mr. Damschroder, Defendants designations are limited to presenting an entire answer where Plaintiffs designations are incomplete. Pursuant to Rule 32, [i]f a party offers in evidence only part of a deposition, an adverse party may require the offeror to introduce other parts that in fairness should be considered with the part introduced. Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(6). Because Defendants designations of Mr. Damschroder s deposition are limited to ensuring that Plaintiffs designations are not misleading, this Court should accept Defendants designations if it accepts Plaintiffs designations. DEPOSITION PAGE AND LINE - Allen County BOE 8:1-8:9 - Allen County BOE 43:4-43:23 - Allen County BOE 63:7-64:12 - Allen County BOE 67:21-68:11 - Allen County BOE 68:12-69:7 - Allen County BOE 70:13-70:24 Jocelyn Bucaro - Butler County BOE 52:12-16 Delaware County BOE 77:21-78:2 23
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 24 of 27 PAGEID #: 17572 Delaware County BOE 78:3-78:20 Delaware County BOE 78:23-80:1 Delaware County BOE 80:2-80:19 Delaware County BOE 80:20-80:25 Delaware County BOE 81:17-81:20 Delaware County BOE 83:2-83:19 Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 51:2-51:9 Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 51:10-53:1 Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 53:2-53:19 Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 53:20-54:6 Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 54:7-54:17 Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 54:18-55:18 Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 55:19-56:17 Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 56:18-57:12 Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 57:13-24 Susan Bloom Fairfield County BOE 57:25-58:25 Alicia Healy Franklin County BOE 25:14-28:12 Elizabeth Fulton Franklin County BOE 9:25-10:9 Zachary Manifold Franklin County BOE 27:3-28:14 M. Darlene Tompkins Franklin County BOE 33:20-38:7 Hamilton County BOE 124:7-126:5 24
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 25 of 27 PAGEID #: 17573 Lorain County BOE 50:16-51:25 Lorain County BOE 52:3-52:21 Lorain County BOE 52:22-53:18 Lorain County BOE 53:19-53:22 Lorain County BOE 53:23-54:11 Lavera Scott Lucas County BOE 81:14-82:6 Montgomery County BOE 59:19-60:14 Montgomery County BOE 60:16-61:6 Stark County BOE 8:9-19 Stark County BOE 15:23-16:24 Paulette Hankins Richland County BOE 41:10-43:19 Paulette Hankins Richland County BOE 44:2-50:18 Paulette Hankins Richland County BOE 50:24-59:6 Brian Sleeth Warren County BOE 62:5-21 Ohio Secretary of State s Office 57:17-23 Ohio Secretary of State s Office 67:10-15 Ohio Secretary of State s Office 83:15 Ohio Secretary of State s Office 260:25-263:15 Ohio Secretary of State s Office 264:16-274:11 25
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 26 of 27 PAGEID #: 17574 II. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully asks this Court to exclude all of Plaintiffs deposition designations. To the extent this Court permits Plaintiffs designations, Defendants request that this Court exclude the specific lines detailed above and accept Defendants counter-designations. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL DEWINE (0009181) Ohio Attorney General /s/ Ryan L. Richardson RYAN L. RICHARDSON (0090382) ZACHERY P. KELLER (0086930) Assistant Attorneys General Constitutional Offices Section 30 East Broad Street, 16 th Floor Columbus, OH 43215-3428 Phone: (614) 466-2872 Fax: (614) 728-7592 zachery.keller@ohioattorneygeneral.gov ryan.richardson@ohioattorneygeneral.gov Counsel for Defendants Secretary of State Jon Husted and State of Ohio 26
Case: 2:06-cv-00896-ALM-TPK Doc #: 580 Filed: 03/08/16 Page: 27 of 27 PAGEID #: 17575 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing was electronically filed with the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, on March 8, 2016, and served upon all parties of record via the court s electronic filing system. /s/ Ryan L. Richardson RYAN L. RICHARDSON (0090382) Assistant Attorney General 27