Case Title: State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell

Citation: 2006-Ohio-4703

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-09-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 111 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2006-Ohio-
4703.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. OHIO DEMOCRATIC PARTY v. BLACKWELL,  
SECY. OF STATE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell,  
111 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2006-Ohio-4703.] 
Discovery stayed in expedited elections case. 
(No. 2006-1678 — Submitted September 12, 2006 — Decided  
September 12, 2006.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
ON MOTION to Quash Subpoenas. 
__________________ 
{¶ 1} This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a 
writ of mandamus in an expedited election case.  Upon consideration of the 
motion of nonparties William M. Todd and Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P., 
to quash relator’s subpoenas,  
{¶ 2} It is ordered by the court that discovery and further briefing and 
filing of evidence pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9) are stayed. 
{¶ 3} It is further ordered that the parties shall file on or before 
September 19, 2006, briefs on the following issue: 
{¶ 4} “Does the court have jurisdiction in this expedited election case to 
issue a writ of mandamus in light of the fact that the Ohio Elections Commission 
has exclusive jurisdiction over acts and failures to act under R.C. 3517.151 and 
3517.153?  See State ex rel. Taft-O’Connor ’98 v. Franklin Cty. Court of 
Common Pleas (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 487, 700 N.E.2d 1232.” 
{¶ 5} The parties shall file reply briefs on or before September 22, 2006.  
The briefs shall be personally served on opposing counsel on the same dates that 
they are filed with the court.  No extensions of time shall be permitted. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
 
MOYER, C.J., LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, and LANZINGER, JJ., 
concur. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., would also grant the motion to quash. 
 
 
RESNICK and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 6} I dissent from the stay imposed sua sponte by this court.  This is an 
expedited election case, and time is of the essence; the gathering of evidence need 
not be halted prior to this court’s making a determination about jurisdiction, 
especially when no party has raised a jurisdictional issue.  In the meantime, the 
movants can raise attorney-client privilege whenever necessary and applicable 
within the discovery process. 
 
RESNICK, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P., and C. Craig Woods, for movants. 
______________________