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

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 111 Ohio St.3d 11, 2006-Ohio-4659.] 
 
 
 
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 11, 2006-Ohio-4659.] 
Elections – Petition for commission to take out-of-state depositions – Petition 
denied. 
(No. 2006-1678 ─ Submitted September 7, 2006 ─ Decided September 11, 2006.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
ON PETITION for Commission to Take Out-of-State Depositions. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election case filed on September 7, 2006, 
relating to the November 7, 2006 election. 
{¶ 2} This cause is now before the court for its consideration of relator’s 
September 7, 2006 petition for the issuance of a commission to take out-of-state 
depositions. 
{¶ 3} Relator seeks a commission (a court order) pursuant to 
Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.300(b)(2) to take out-of-state depositions of Clint Cline and the 
designated representative of a company called “Design 4 Advertising, Inc.”  
Relator asserts that Design 4 is an advertising and marketing firm with a principal 
place of business in Hillsborough County, Florida, and that Cline is believed to be 
the principal of Design 4 with a residence in Hillsborough County, Florida.  
According to relator, the entire $1,537,500 contributed by Common Sense Ohio to 
Common Sense 2006, as of September 6, 2006, was disbursed to Design 4 to 
produce and air political ads. 
{¶ 4} We deny the petition for the following reasons. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 5} First, nothing in the cited Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 
authorizes or requires such a commission before a deposition may be taken in 
Florida of a Florida business or resident.  Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.300(b)(2) applies only to 
the taking of depositions in foreign countries: 
{¶ 6} “In a foreign country depositions may be taken * * * (2) before a 
person commissioned by the court, and a person so commissioned shall have the 
power by virtue of the commission to administer any necessary oath and take 
testimony.” 
{¶ 7} The depositions here will evidently be taken in Florida, so 
Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.300(b)(2) does not apply. 
{¶ 8} Second, the only other authority cited by relator in support of its 
petition for a commission, R.C. 2319.09, Ohio’s version of the Uniform Foreign 
Depositions Act, applies to mandates issued by courts of other states and 
countries ordering that witnesses be compelled to testify in Ohio.  There is no 
allegation that any other state has required that the prospective deponents be 
compelled to appear and testify in Ohio. 
{¶ 9} Finally, Civ.R. 28(B) appears to permit out-of-state depositions for 
use in Ohio cases without the necessity of the issuance of a commission: 
{¶ 10} “Depositions may be taken outside this state before:  a person 
authorized to administer oaths in the place where the deposition is taken * * *.” 
{¶ 11} “Civ.R. 28 recognizes that counsel will arrange depositions 
without court intervention and provides a simple procedure under which the 
attorney and the court are given wide latitude in selecting the person before whom 
a deposition may be taken.” 2 Klein & Darling, Baldwin’s Ohio Civil Practice 
(2004) 27, Section 28:1.  This is also consistent with Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.300(a), which 
provides, “Depositions may be taken before any notary public or judicial officer 
or before any officer authorized by the statutes of Florida to take 
January Term, 2006 
3 
acknowledgments or proof of executions of deeds or by any person appointed by 
the court in which the action is pending.” 
{¶ 12} Based on the foregoing, we deny relator’s petition for a 
commission to take out-of-state depositions.  The authorities cited by relator do 
not apply.  At present, it appears that relator can proceed with these depositions 
without the necessity of court intervention.  This case remains pending on the 
docket for a consideration of the merits following the presentation of evidence 
and briefs pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9). 
Petition denied. 
MOYER, C.J., LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL AND 
LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
RESNICK AND PFEIFER, JJ., concur separately. 
__________________ 
ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J., concurring. 
{¶ 13} For the reasons stated in the majority opinion, I concur that 
relator’s petition for a commission to take out-of-state depositions should be 
denied.  However, I believe that the purpose behind relator’s petition may be to 
have this court appoint a person before whom the depositions could be taken.  See 
Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.300(a) (“Depositions may be taken * * * by any person appointed 
by the court in which the action is pending”).  If that is the intent of relator’s 
petition, it may be possible that a newly filed request on that basis would be 
granted by this court. 
{¶ 14} I also take this opportunity to present a few observations about the 
substance of this case. 
{¶ 15} My initial reaction upon reviewing the complaint was to say, “Here 
we go again.”  The events that give rise to this case are strangely reminiscent of 
events that occurred in the 2000 election.  After the group Citizens for a Strong 
Ohio funded what can only be characterized as “attack ads” in the 2000 election, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
that group resisted vigorously the necessity to disclose the names of its 
contributors.  See Ohio Elections Comm. v. Ohio Chamber of Commerce & 
Citizens for a Strong Ohio, 158 Ohio App.3d 557, 2004-Ohio-5253, 817 N.E.2d 
447; State ex rel. Common Cause/Ohio v. Ohio Elections Comm., 156 Ohio 
App.3d 544, 2004-Ohio-1594, 806 N.E.2d 1054; Common Cause/Ohio v. Ohio 
Elections Comm., 150 Ohio App.3d 31, 2002-Ohio-5965, 779 N.E.2d 766. 
{¶ 16} In the wake of the much-debated and much-criticized situation that 
developed in the 2000 election (and spurred by other events as well), the General 
Assembly responded by enacting the more stringent statutory disclosure 
requirements of 2004 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 1, effective March 31, 2005. 
{¶ 17} Now, incredibly, even with those more stringent disclosure 
requirements, Common Sense Ohio and Common Sense 2006, two groups that 
appear to be tightly connected and that bear a striking resemblance to Citizens for 
a Strong Ohio, are claiming that no disclosure is required, in an attempt to hide 
the identities of contributors.  It appears that some people will never learn. 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, L.L.P., Scott E. North, Kathleen M. 
Trafford, Ralph F. Gildehaus III, Julie L. Atchison, and L. Bradfield Hughes, for 
relator. 
______________________