Pag e 1 of 15 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0793n.06 No. 09-4407 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT J OHN W. FERRON, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. ECHOSTAR SATEL L I TE, L L C, et al., De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E SO UT HE RN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

BEF ORE: BA TC HELD ER , C hie f Judg e ; K EITH and R OG ER S, C ir c uitJudg e s. KEITH, Circuit Judge. Pla intiff-A pp e lla nt John F e rr on

(F e rr on ) b ro ug ht s uit

a g a ins t EchoStar Satellite L .L .C. n/k/a DI SH Network L .L .C. (“Ec hostar”) , E-Mana g ement Gro u p , Inc. (" E- Ma na g e me nt" ), Hydr a

Me dia Gr ou p, Inc . ( " Hydr a " ), 41 1 We b Dir e c tor y (" 41 1 Web" ) a

nd Di sh Pronto, I nc. (“ Dish Pronto”), cla iming their a dve r ti s in g c a mp a ig n s v io la te d the Ohio Consumer Sales Practice s Act (" OCSP A" ), Ohio Rev
. C o d e § 1 3 45.01 et seq. The district cour t gr anted the de fe nd ants ’ m oti on s f

or summa ry jud g me nt and de nie d F e rr on ’s mot ion se e kin g sanc tio ns a g a ins t de fe nd ants fo r f

a ili ng to pr od

uc e , f or a se c on d ti me , c e rt a in a dv e rt ise me nts . F e rr on no w a pp e a ls. For the re asons that follow, the district cour t’s ruling s shall be af

firmed. F ACTUAL BACK GR OUND Plaintiff-appe llant J ohn W. Ferr on is an attorney who lives and pra ctices la w in the state of Oh io. As a

me ans of

fu rt he ri nghis pr a c tic e , he, accordin g to d e fe nd ants , p ur po se fu lly so lic its ,No. 09-4407, Fe rro n v . Ec ho sta r S ate lli te , LLC , e t. a l.

Pag e 2 of 15 re c e ive s, and save s e ma il a dv e rt ise me nts , and the n fi le s laws uit s, arguin g the e ma il a dv e rt ise me nts vio late the Oh io C on sume r S a le s Pr a c tic e s A c t. Def endan t -a p p ell ee E choStar is in the business of deliver ing D I SH Network br and dire ct broadc ast satellite television products a nd s er v i ces to re sidential and business customers. It has
c on tr a c tua l a g re e me nts wi th t ho us and s o f r e ta ile rs natio nw ide
. Th e re ta ile rs se e k to mark e t and se ll DI SH N e tw or

k b ra nd sy ste ms a

nd pa c ka g e s thro ug h a

va ri e ty of me dia , in c lud ingthe int e rn e t. D e f e n d an t
- a p p e l l e e E
- M an a g e m e n ti s o n e o f E c h o S t ar ' s i n d e p e n d e n t c o n tr a c t o r r e t a i l e r s . It
a dv e rt ise s DI SH Ne tw or

k b ra nd sate lli te e qu ipm e nt a

nd se rv ic e s. Whe n it

c on summate s a

sa le , it
c omm un ic a te s th e re le va

nt i nf or matio n to Ec ho Sta

r, wh ic h d e liv e rs the pr od uc t. De fe nd ant- a

pp e lle e Hydr a

a c ts a s a se rv ic e that c onne c ts s a te lli te dis h s e rv ic e re ta ile rs wi th companies that adver

tise by email. The retailers create t he advertisements. Hydra then stores the adver tisements on its database
. Other c ompanies ac cess Hydra' s databa se and se nd the adve rti s e me n ts to c o n s u me r s b y e ma il
. A c c o r d in g ly , H y dr a n e it h e r c r e a te s n o r s e n ds the adver tisements it st ores. Def endant- appellee 4 1 1 W eb is an online ser vices c ompany

that offe rs a number

of
we b- ba se d s e rv ic e s to its c lie nts , inc lud ing pr og ra ms that hel p c omp anie s ma rk e t th e ir pr og ra ms t o interested c ustomers and c onduct e- mail marketing . 411 Web manag ed and catalogued re sponses to email adver

tisements that E chostar or its retailers se nt. Fer

ron did not rec eive a

ny emails from 411 Web at any

time. This lawsuit ar i s es out of emails def endants a lleg edly

sent adve rtising c able tele vision
se rv ic e s that DI SH Ne tw or k pr ov ide s. F e rr on a lle g e s that he re c e ive d hund re ds of sim ila

r em ailsNo. 09-4407, Fe rro n v . Ec ho sta r S ate lli te , LLC , e t. a l.

Pag e 3 of 15 conce rning the afor ementioned service s. He spe cifica lly claims that these e mails ill eg ally omitted
cer tain terms and c onditions rela ti n g to the minimum l eng th of a subscr iber’s c ontrac t, the mandatory leasingof equipment a

nd the nec essity

of a written contra ct that Echostar would later impose. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

no te d th a t, a c c or din g to d e fe nd ants , F e r r o n p ur po se fu lly pr ov ide d h is e ma il ad d r e s s to th e a

p p r o xim a te ly

tw e lv e s a te ll it e d is hw e b s it e s f r o m wh ic hh e late r

rec eived
a dv e rt ise me nts . B e fo re he prov ide d h is e ma il a dd re ss t o th e we bs ite s, F e rr on c on ta c te d D I SH Networ k call ce nters to obta in inf ormation about the terms and conditions of various DI SH Network products and se rvice s. Acc ording ly , Fe rron wa s awa re of the ter m s alleg edly

excluded from the de c e pti ve e ma ils be fo re he re c e ive d th e m. On June 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 , F e r

r o nf i l e d h i s i n i t i a l c o mp l a i n ti nth i s c a s e , a s s e rt i n g c l a i m s a g a ins t Appellee s EchoStar, E-Manag ement, and Hydra. (R.2). On J uly 25, 2007, Fe rron f

iled his second amende d complaint whi ch n am ed additional defe ndants, including 411 Web. After nume rous ple a din g s, on

Se pte mbe r 24 , 20 08 , the dis tr ic t c ourt g ra nte d Hydr a ' s mo tio n f

or summa ry jud g me nt, ruling that Hy dra is exempt from claims under OCSP A pursuant to O.R.C. §1345.12. (R.295). On Aug ust 7, 2009, the district court g rante d EchoStar’ s, E-Mana g ement’s, and 411 Web’s motion for summary judgme nt. (R.353). The district cour t held that, beca

use F err on had not bee n dece ived by the adve rtisements in question, he could not pre vail under O CSP A. Id. On Dec embe r 11, 2008, during the pende ncy

of th e l i t i g ation befor e the district cour t, Fer ron filed a

motion for discovery sanctions as to a

ppellees Echostar , E-Mana g ement, 411 Web, Hy dra, a nd Dish Pronto (R. 328). On J uly 30, 2009, the mag istrate judge denied Fe rron' s motion for discovery sanctions, re asoningthatNo. 09-4407, Fe rro n v . Ec ho sta r S ate lli te , LLC , e t. a l.

Pag e 4 of 15 sanctions wer e not appr opriate in li g ht of t he fact t hat def endants ha d alre ady

provided F err on the reque sted materia ls. (R.353). Fe rron timely appea led ea ch of the court’s r ulings a g ainst him. STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW The rev ie w o f

a mo ti o nf o r s u mm ar y ju d g me n t u

n d e r F e d e r a l R

u le o f Ci v il Pr o c e d

u r e 56
se e ks to d e te rm ine wh e the r " the re are any g e nu ine fa c tua l is su e s th a t pr op e rl y c an b e re so lve d o nly by a fi nd er of fact becau se th ey may reas on abl y be re so lv ed i n fav or o f ei th er pa rt y ." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U. S. 242 , 250 (1 98 6) . In a pp lyingthi s r

ule , “ the me re e xiste nc e of so me alleg ed fa ctual dispute betwe en the pa rties will not de feat an otherw ise proper ly supported motion for summary

judgme nt; the requir em en t i s t h at t here be no g enuine issue of materia l fac t.” Id. at 247-48. To avo id u su

rp ing the ro le of the fa c tf

ind e r, a c ourt

de c idi nga

summa ry jud g me nt i ssu e mus t
acc ept as true the opposing party ' s evidenc e and a ssume all justifiable infere nces that can be drawn there from. Id. a t 25 5. Ho we ve r, if the a dv e rs e pa rt y " fa ils to m ake a

sh ow ingsu ff

ic ie nt t o e sta

bli sh the exist ence of an e lement esse n t i al t o t h at par ty ' s case ," summar

y judgme nt must be gr anted. Ce lote xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A district court' s ruling r eg arding a matter in discover y is reviewe d for a

n abuse of discretion. United States v. Guy , 978 F.2d 934, 938- 39 (6th Cir. 1992). DI SCU SSIO N F e rr on ra ise s thre e iss ue s on app e a l. F ir st, F e rr on argue s that th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr on e ou sly g rante d summary

judgme nt to defenda

nts Echostar, E-Mana g ement, 411 Web and Dish Pronto as to his claim under the OCSPA. Second, F err on alleges that the district court mistakenly g rante dNo. 09-4407, Fe rro n v . Ec ho sta r S ate lli te , LLC , e t. a l.

Pag e 5 of 15 summary judgme nt to defenda

nt Hy dra on the g rounds that it was cove red by the publisher exception
un de r t he OC SPA . T hir d, F e rr on po sit s that the dis tr ic t c ourt inc or re c tly de nie d its mot ion to i mpo se discovery sanctions on the def

endants for

their fa ilure to prese rve e lectronic ally stored evide nce. I. T HE D I STRI C T C OU R T P ROP E RL Y G RANT E D D EFEN D A N TS E CHO S T AR ’ S , E-M ANAGE M E NT ’ S AND 411 W EB ’ S M OT I ON F OR S UM M ARY J UDGMENT . T h e is s u e b e f

o r e th is Co u rt o na

p p e a l i s c le ar . Wh e th e r

th e d is tr ic t c o urt p r o p e r ly g r an te d summary judgme nt in favor of

the defe ndants turns on whether a plaintiff seeking redr ess under the OCSP A must have be en ac tually and per sonally

dece ived by

the alleg edly

illega l adver

tisements. The pa rties present diverg ent answe rs to this question. Ferr on at no point alleg es that he w as pe rs on a lly

de c e ive d b y

the a dv e rt ise me nts in q

ue sti on , b ut ra

the r a sse rt s th a t be c a

us e the OC SPA punishes adver

tisements that from an objec tive observe r’s pe rspec tive ar e d ec eptive, his persona l kn ow le dg e is ir

re le va nt. De fe nd ants , in

c on tr a st, a lle g e tha

t an in div idu a l ma

y on ly a dv anc e a

c la im
un der the O CSPAif

he or sh e wa s a c tua lly

and pe rs on a lly

de c e ive d b y

the a dv e rt ise me nts
. Acc ording ly , as F err on was aw are of the ter ms he complains def

endants e x cluded, summary judgme nt, defe ndants argue, should be g rante d in their favo r. Gi v en t h at the we ight of the jurisprudenc e is in their favor, we ag ree with defe ndants’ conc lusion. F e rr on ’s c la ims ari se un de r § 13 45 .0 2( A) of the Oh io C od e wh ic h p ro vid e s: No supplier shall commit a n unfair or dece ptive act or prac tice in c onnection with a consumer tr ansac tion. Such an unfair or dece ptive act or

prac tic e b y a suppl ier violates this section whether it occurs be fore , during or af ter the tra nsaction. O HI O R EV . C ODE § 1345.02(A). As the district court noted, O hio courts have written ex tensively on the purpose a nd history of the OCSPA. T h e court in Thomas v. Sun Furniture and Appliance Co. , 61 Ohio App.2d 78No. 09-4407, Fe rro n v . Ec ho sta r S ate lli te , LLC , e t. a l.

Pag e 6 of 15 (1978), e x plained that the law was modele d, in part, on the Unifor m Consumer Sales Practice s Act (UCSPA). Id. at 81. The UCSP A, by its own te rms, must be construed “ to protect c onsumers fr om suppliers who commit dece ptive and unconsc ionable sale s prac tices[.] ” I d

. ( q u o t i n g U

N I FORM C O N SUM ER S A LES P RA CT I CE S A CT § 1 , 7 A U. L .A
. 3 (1 97 8) ). L ike wi se , th e sta ff re po rt of the Oh io L eg islative Service Commission evidence s the OCSPA’s drafter s’ intent to curb de ception: Dec eption is the classic consumer proble m. From a n ear ly time, the law has pr ovided reme dies for the buy er who has been dece ived. As marke ting and consumer se rvice s have become more complex, the private re medies of the c ommon law, and tra ditional crim i n al ac t ions, have be come r elatively ineffe ctive as a

means by

which the consumer ma

y protec t himself, and the g overnme nt has intervene d. . . . Id. (q u o t i n g O HI O L EGI S L AT I VE S ER VI CE C OMMI S S I ON , R E P OR T N O . 102, F R AUD , D EC EP TI ON AN D O T H ER A B US ES I N C O N SUM ER S AL ES AND S ER V I CE S (1971))
. The text of the OCSP A, beyond providing a limited number of e x ampl es , provides no clar ificat i o n as to the nature of the de ceptive a cts in question, but rather ve sts the Ohio Attorney Ge ne ra l w iththe a

uth or ity to d e fi ne wi th r e a so na ble sp e c if ic ity a dv e rt ise me nts ill e g a l un de r t he a c t. O HI O R EV . C ODE § 1345.05(B )(1)
. Fe rron a lleg es that def

endants ha v e co m mitted severa l acts that violate re g ulations the At tor n e y G e n e r a l h a s p r o m u l g a t e d
. F e r r o n , f i r s t , a l l e g e s th a t d e f

e n d an t s h av e v i o l a te d O hio Administrative Code § 109:4-2-202, whic h provides that “it is a deceptive act or prac tice . . . for a supplier in the sale of

offe ring g oods or servic es to make a ny offe r . . . without stating cle arly and
c on sp ic uo us ly

in c los e pr oximi ty

to t he wo rd s st a tin g the of

fe r a ny mate ri a l e xclu sio ns , r e se rv a tio ns , limit ations, modifications or conditions.” O HI O A D M IN . C ODE § 1 09 :4- 2- 20 2. F e rr on a dd iti on a lly alleg es that def

endants have violated § 109:4-3-04, which provides that an advertiser, when usingNo. 09-4407, Fe rro n v . Ec ho sta r S ate lli te , LLC , e t. a l.

The OCSPA provides that when an adver tiser commits a dece ptive act, the c onsumer may 1 resc ind the transac tion or rec over the g reater of three times his actual damag es or 200 dollar s. O H IO R EV . C ODE § 1345.09(b). Pag e 7 of 15 the word “ fre e” in a

n adver tisement, list “ all of the ter ms, conditions and obligations upon which
rec eipt of the ‘fr ee’ g oods or service s are conting ent[.] ” Id. § 109:4-3-04. Finally , Fe rron c ites the applicable s ection of the Attorney Gene ral’s r egulations gove rning prizes. Section 109:4-3-06 pr ov ide s th a t it

is a de c e pti ve a c t fo r a su

pp lie r to no tif

y any c on sume r t

hat th e c on sume r i s e lig ibl e to rec eive a

ny thing of value “ unless the supplier clea rly and conspic uously

discloses to the consumer any and all conditions nec essar y to . . . rec eive a

ny thing of value.” Id . § 109:4-3-06.

1 As noted, defe ndants alleg e that re g ardle ss of whethe r they violated these pr ovisions, Ferr on can not r ecove r because he was awa re of any terms or conditions that he cla ims defenda nts ex cluded. Def endants re ly

primarily on the j u r is p r u d e n c e o f O h io c o u r ts inte rpre ting the O CSP A, which
overwhelmingly

supports their ar g ument. For example, in Che

sn ut v . Pro gr essi v e Cas . I ns . Co , 166 Ohio App. 3d 299 (2006), the plaintiff, a pur chase r of a Saturn automobile, broug ht suit under the OCSP A ag ainst Progr essive Insuranc e Co. The plaintiff spe cifica lly alleg ed th at P ro gre ssive had committed dece ptive acts by : 1) failingto obtain a salvag e title afte r the c ar w as dama g ed in a f ire; and 2) not prope rly

repr esentingthe deg ree of dama g e to the ca r. Id. a t 30 7. Th e c ourt

re je c te d b oth
argume nts , h ig hli g hti ngthe pla int if f’ s a wa re ne ss o f t

he c ar’ s h ist or

y wh e n h e purc ha se d it : I n the instant case , Prog ressive titled a vehicle in acc ordanc e with the t itling laws of the applica

ble state. As a

result, the Saturn ha d a " clea n" t i t l e, although it had pr e vio us ly

be e n d e c lare d a

tot a l lo ss a

nd wa s r e pa ir e d be fo re Che snut p ur c ha se d it
. Howeve r, Chesnut was fully aware of the situati on , as Ray ' s informed him that the Saturn had be en dama g ed in a f ire, a nd he obser

ved the ve hicle as it wa s being repa ired. He also spent $8,500 on a car with a pproxi mately 6,000 miles on it, when the AC V wa s ov e r $1 4, 00 0. As Pr og re ssi ve state d in its br ie f, " thi s i s no t a c as eNo. 09-4407, Fe rro n v . Ec ho sta r S ate lli te , LLC , e t. a l.

Pag e 8 of 15 where an unsuspecting consume r purchased a vehic le with no knowledg e of its prior history and wa s dece ived bec ause the vehicle' s titl e fa iled to reve al that it ha d been damag ed. Plaintif

f here k new full well t hat the vehic le had sustained fire dam age and was a ble to purcha se the ve hicle for a fr action of its re tail value." Id. at 307-08 (e mphasis added)
. Simi larly , in Crull v. Maple Park Body Shop , 3 6 O h io Ap p . 3 d 1 5 3 ( 1 9 8 7 ) , th e plaintiff,
ow ne r o f a

n a uto mob ile , b ro ug ht s uit

un de r the OC SPA a g a ins t th e de fe nd ant who ha d p a int e d h is
car . Whil e the de fenda

nt was holding the ca

r so that he c ould paint it, it was damag ed by hail. Id. at 153. Def

endant, shortly

there afte r, informe d the plaintiff that additional work would be require d to fix the damag e. Id. at 157. He the n quoted the plaintiff a new pr ice whic h the plaintiff appr oved. Id. Plaintiff later brought suit under the OCSPA alleg ing that the defe ndant h ad committed a dece ptive act by

fa i l i n g t o p o s t a sig n stating that all consumers ha d the rig ht to rece ive a wr itten estimate as r equire d by

law. Id. at 156. The c ourt, ag ain, re jected the argument, noting that
r e g ar d le s s o f

w h e th e r th e s ignw a s p o s te d , Cr u ll w a s n o ti f

ie d o f th e e s ti mate b e f

o r e d e f e n dant perf ormed wor

k on his car: Under the fa cts as pre sented by

Sorrell' s aff

idavit, we are unable to c onclude that the failure to post the sign was l ikely to "induc e a state of mind in [appellant] that is not in acc ord with the fa cts." Appellee s provided appellant with a written e stimate and appellan t approve d an amount lar g er tha n the orig inal estimate bef ore the repa irs wer e finished. Thus, a ll the information req u i re d t o be included in the sig n was actua lly complied with. There fore , we f ail to see that a

ppellant could h av e been dece ived by

the omission of the sign. Id. at 158 (c itations omi tted). As the district cour t properly noted, these c ases, take n toge ther, standNo. 09-4407, Fe rro n v . Ec ho sta r S ate lli te , LLC , e t. a l.

F e rr on a tte mpt s to di st ing uis h th e se c a se s o n th e g ro un ds that th e y aro se un de r O .R. C. 2 13 45 .0 2( B ) a s o pp os e d to 13 45 .0 2( A) wh ic h h e a lle g e s p ro vid e s th e ba sis fo r h is c la im. We f a il t o see a ny distinction between the se ctions. § 1345.02(B ) mere ly provi d es co n cr ete ex amples of the ty pes of de ceptive a cts prohibited by § 1345.02(A). Pag e 9 of 15 for the pr oposition “that a plaintiff who c ould not have bee n dece ived by the a supplier' s conduct
ca n n o tp re v ai l o nan OC S P A c l ai m . ” N o . 2 : 0 6 -c v -0 0 4 5 3 , 2 0 0 9 U. S
. Di s t
. L E XIS 1 2 9 8 0 4 , * 1 6 (A u g. 7, 2009, S.D. Ohio). 2 Fe rron, in re sponse, pre sents three case s in which he a lleg es cour ts adopted the pe r se standard he advocates. Unfor tunately for F err on, eac h of t he cases is rea dily distinguishable. The court’s de cisions in Grieselding v. Krischak, No. L -06-1010, 2007 Ohio 2668, at *3 (Ohio App. 6 Dist. J uly 1, 2007), and Mo

y e r E x c av ati ng & Tru c kin g v. Lewi

s , No. H-84- 11, 1984 Ohio App. L EX I S 11 52 9, 19 84 WL14 42 1, a t *1 (O hio Ap p. 6 D ist
. No v. 16 , 1 98 4) , a re ina pp lic a ble . Wh ile the cour ts stated that proof of

knowledg e or intent wa s not nece ssary t o prove a violation of the OCSP A, in doing so, the y wer e cle arly

ref err ing to the state of mi n d o f t h e d ef endant, not the
consumer. See M

oyer, 1984 Ohio App. L EXI S 11529, *3-4 (notingthat beca use a pla intiff need not pr ov e that th e de fe nd ant a c te d k no wi ng ly or int e nti on a lly , a def e nd ant wil l be str ic tly lia

ble fo r i ts
c on du c t) ; Grieselding, 2 0 0 7 Oh i o 2 6 6 8 , * 1 0 (c i t i n g Mo y e r fo r t he pr opos iti on

that “ the Oh io Ad min istrativ e Cod e do e s n ot r e qu ir e pr oo f o f i nte nt o r k no wl e dg e ; r ath er, any

fa ilure to c omp ly with the regulations is deemed a ‘ dece ptive act or prac tice’” ). Nor are we pe rsuade d otherwise by the cour t’s decision in Zindle v. Hawks , No. 13016, 1987 Ohio App. L EXI S 8631 (Ohio App. 9 Dist., Sept. 2, 1987) – the third case Fe rron c ites. I n Zin dle , the cour t found that defe ndants had violated Ohio law, by failing to notify the consumer

in writingNo. 09-4407, Fe rro n v . Ec ho sta r S ate lli te , LLC , e t. a l.

F e r r o n , f in a ll y , a ll e g e s th a t o ur d e c is io n s h o u ld b e g u id e d b y th e U n it e d St a te s District 3 Court for the Southern D istrict of Ohio’s unpublished dec ision in Fe rro n v . Sub scr ib erB as e Holdings, Inc. , No. 2: 0 8 -C V- 7 60, 2009 U.S. Dist. L EXI S 23583 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2009). Reg ardle ss of the dec ision’s preced en t i al v al u e to this court, we f ind it to be dist inguisha

ble. At issue in SubscriberBase was whe ther F err on must have alleg ed that he a ct ed in relianc e on the alleg edly dece ptive adver

tisements to procee d with a claim under the OCSPA. Id. at 18. The c ourt found that he ne ed not have acte d in relianc e. See id. at 19 (“ [T] he ema ils repre sent a solicitation. I t is not necessar

y that a sale arise out of a solicitation for a plaintiff to f ile suit under the OCSPA.”). At issue here is the distinct question of whether a p l aintiff must have be en dec eived by the adver tisement, not whether he ac ted as a result of such de ception. As to this narrow er que stion, the court in Su bs c rib e rB as e was silent. Pag e 10 of 15 of his rig ht to rece ive an e stimate. Id. at * 6 -1 0
. T h e court found that a violation had oc curr ed desp i t e t h e fact that the plaintiff had r ece ived an e stimate, thereby fulfilling the r egulation’s purposes. Id. a t *1 1. Whil e the c ourt fo un d a vio latio n und e r the c ir c ums tanc e s, it u lti mate ly ref used to impose liability , beca use t he defenda

nt established that he acted in g ood faith. Id. at *11- 13. As the district court noted, “the appellate court ne ed not have rea ched the issue as to whethe r the OCSPA was violated.” 2009 U.S. Dist. L EXI S 129804, at *24-25. Acc ording ly , the conc lusion
wa s obiter dicta and nee d not be g iven the same we i gh t as d ec i s i ons to the contrar y . See, e .g., Seminole Tr ibe of Fla. v. Florida , 517 U.S. 44, 67 (1996) ( "We a dhere . . . not to mere ob ite r d ic ta , but rather to the well-e stablished rationale upon which the Court base d t h e re s ults of its earlier decisions. W hen an opinion issues for the Court, it is not onl y the re sult but also thos e portions of the opinion nece ssary

to that result by

which we are bound.")
. 3 F ina lly , c on tr ary to F e rr on ’s a lle g a tio ns , o ur ru lin g he re tod ay

do e s n ot f

or e c los e a ll c la ims under the OCSP A. Any

individual who rec eives a n adver tisement excluding par

ts of the offe r and later f eels a g g rieve d when he or she is pr esente d with the additional terms may seek r edre ss under the Act. Contrar

y to Fer ron’s arguments, there is no rea son to be lieve that such individuals will beNo. 09-4407, Fe rro n v . Ec ho sta r S ate lli te , LLC , e t. a l.

Pag e 11 of 15 unawa re of the de ception the a dvertisements pe rpetuate. When a consume r re sponds to a dece ptive adver tisement, he or she will be prese nted with the additional terms. At this point , if the per son has taken the adver

tisement on its fa ce, he or she will be come awa re of the discrepa

ncy b et we en the adver tisement and the a ctual off er. Simply

put, the only

persons fo re cl o sed by

today ’s rulingare individuals who solicit emails from an adve rtiser a fter ha ving r es ea rche d and discove red the additional terms the adve rtisement alleg edly excludes. Given Ohio’s jurisprude nce a nd the orig inal intentions of the law, we find th at t he district court prope rly

dismiss ed def

endant’ s claims under the OCSP A. II. T HE D I STRI C T C OU R T C ORRE CT L Y H ELD TH A T D EF END A N T H YDRA W AS C OV ERED BY TH E P UB L I S HE R E X C EP TI ON TO THE OCSPA . B y its ow n te rm s, the OC SPA do e s n ot a pp ly to: a publisher, br oadca st er, pr inter or other person e ng ag ed in the dissemination of information or the r eproduc tion of printed or pictoria l matter insofar as the information or matter

has bee n disseminated or re produce d on behalf of others w it h o u t k n o w le d g e th a t i t v io late d

[th e A c t]
. O HI O R EV . C ODE § 1345.12. As noted, the pa

rties do not dis p u t e that Hy dra w as not involved in the cre ation of the challeng ed adve rtisements, but rather m er el y s t ored the m for the pur poses of their later dissemina t i o n . Ac co rd i ng ly , it is clear that Hydra is pre cisely the sort of e ntity

to which the
e x e mp t i o ni s i n t e n d e d

t o a p p l y. Fe rron, in re sponse, pre sents no evidenc e that Hydra w as involved in the cr eation of the disseminated adve rtisements, but rather argues that the exemption shoul d not apply to Hy dra f

or two
se pa rate re a so ns .No. 09-4407, Fe rro n v . Ec ho sta r S ate lli te , LLC , e t. a l.

Pag e 12 of 15 Fe rron, f irst, posits that Hy dra, unlike other publi shers, was not paid a flat fee for storingthe challeng ed adve rtisements, but rather was pa id a small fee eac h time a sol icited customer c ontacted E
- M an a g e m e n to r

D i s hN e t w o r

k a s a r e s u l to f th e a dv e rt i s e m e n t s H ydr a h a d s t o r e d
. A c c o r d i n g l y, F e rr on argue s that H y dr a , unli ke pu bli sh e rs wh ic h r e c e ive a

fl a t f e e , h a d a pe rs on a l in te re st i n
e ns ur ingthat th e pe rs on s so lic ite d w ou ld r e sp on d to the a dv e rt ise me nts . T his pe rs on a l in te re st,
acc ording to Fer

ron, made Hy dra more than a mer e publisher, br oadca ster or pr inter. As the district court acknow ledg ed, Fe rron’ s argument is not only novel, but also lacks a

ny b a s i s i nt h e t e x to f

t h e O C S P A o r

t h i s o r an y o th e r c o urt ’ s j u r i s p r

u d e n c e . 2 0 0 8 U
. S
. D i s t
. LE X IS 82841, *7-8 (S.D. Ohio, Sep. 24, 2008). Even we re w e to ig nore suc h, we f ind the rea soning of

Fe rron’ s argu ment to be flaw ed. Reg ardle ss of whether

an adve rtiser is paid a f

lat fee for disseminatingadver tisements or paid on a
c on tin g e nt ba sis , de pe nd ing up on the numbe r of pe rs on s so lic ite d wh o r e sp on d to the a dv e rt ise me nt, the publisher maintains an inter est in ensuringthat the per sons solicite d re s p o n d to the adver tisement. The number

of per sons respondingto an adve rtisement may not deter m i n e the
amou nt of pa y me nts a pu

bli sh e r pa id a fl a t fe e re c e ive s ini tia lly , but wi ll a lmo st ine vit a bly a ff e c t it s future busine ss with the adver tiser. That is, if the a dvertisement fails to produce a suff icient number of c us tom e rs , r e g ard le ss o f whe the r t he pu bli sh e r i s p a id a

fl a t f e e , th e a dv e rt ise r w ill lik e ly c ho os e another publisher in the future , there by eliminating f

uture prof its for the publisher. Al te rn a tiv e ly , F e rr on

argue s th a t H y dr a

ma y no t r e ly on the pu bli sh e r e xce pio n f

or any e ma ils sent afte r June 14, 2006 when it rec eived a ctual notice of the email’s illega lity as a result of the filing of F e rr on ’s laws uit . F e rr on ’s argume nt a g a in a ssume s too muc h. I nh e re nt i n F e rr on ’s argume nt i sNo. 09-4407, Fe rro n v . Ec ho sta r S ate lli te , LLC , e t. a l.

Al t h o u g ht h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtd i d n o ta c tu a l l y

r u l e o nF e r

r o n ’ s m o t i o nf

o r s an c t i o n s o r

h is 4 objections to the mag istrate judg e’s or der de nying the motion, for purposes of this appe al, we tr eat the district court’s or der dismissing F err on’s substantive claims as also disposing of his motion for sanctions. Pag e 13 of 15 the assumption that his complaint sufficiently proved that the emails violated the OCSPA. As noted above, F err on did not and can not pr ove any such violation. Acc ording ly , the district court properly found that the publisher’ s exempti on shields Hy dra from liability
. III . T HE D I STRI C T C OU R T P ROP E RL Y D E NI E D F E RRON ’ S M OT I ON T O I M POSE D I S COVE RY S ANCT I ONS . Fi n a ll y , F e r

r o n a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o urt’ s d e n ia l o f h is mo ti o n to im p o s e s an c ti ons on defe ndants Echostar , E-Mana g ement, 411-W eb Dictionary , Hydra and Dish Pronto for their failure to p ro du c e to F e rr on , a se c on d ti me , th e g ra

ph ic ima g e s a sso c iate d w ith pa rt ic ula r e ma il
a dv e rt ise me nts
. 4 Fe rron a dmits t hat def

endants initially

provided him with a C D-Rom including a ll requested emails and any related g raphic imag es. Howe ver, he alleg es that since the CD was provide d, links included in the CD to cer

tain g raphic imag es have expired. Acc ording ly , when he clicks on the links provided, no imag es ar e display ed. F err on subsequently reque sted that defe ndants provide pr inted
c op ie s o f t he a dv e rt ise me nts a lr e a dy pr ov ide d. De fe nd ants re sp on de d that the y ha d n o r e sp on sib ili ty to m a int a in t

he a dv e rt ise me nts in the ir or ig ina l f or m on c e the y

ha d p ro vid e d th e m, c omp le te wi th any g raphic imag es, to Fe rron. Fe rron, they alleg e, shoul d have preser ved the advertisements a

nd any related imag es once he re ceive d them. Fe rron, in re sponse, filed the m o t i on for sa nctions at issue here
.No. 09-4407, Fe rro n v . Ec ho sta r S ate lli te , LLC , e t. a l.

Pag e 14 of 15 "Deferen ce" is th e "hal lm ark o f abu se- of- di scr eti on revi ew . . . " Gen. Ele c. Co. v. J oiner , 522 U.S. 136, 141 (1997). By definition, a par

ty holding e vidence is guilty of spol iation only when it intentionally

alters
or de str oy s re le va

nt e vid e nc e be fo re an o pp os ingpa rt y ha s th e op po rt

un ity to e xami ne it. Simeone v. Girard Cit

y B d. of Educ. , 872 N.E.2d 344, 355 (Ohio App. 3d 2007) . As noted, in this case, Fe rron not only

was pre sented with the opportunity to examine the re quested imag es, he in fa ct
e xami ne d th e m. Fur thermore , there is no dispute that "the plaintiff is under a duty to prese rve evidence which it knows or rea sonably should know i s rele vant t o the ac tion." See, e .g., Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Ge neral Motors Corp. , No . 9 4O T0 17 , 1 99 4 O hio Ap p. L EX I S 49 60 , at *9 (O hio Ct. Ap p. Oc t. 28 , 1 9 9 4 )
. A c c o r d i n g l y , i f i m a g e s a s s o c i a t e d w i th th e e m a i l a dv e rt i s e m e n t s e xi s t e d , th e y we re in Fe rron' s possession and he should have prese rved the m. He could have printed them out or saved the m to the ha

rd dr ive on hi s com

pute r. F e rr on

a dmi ts that he fa ile d to take the se ba sic ste ps . I nstead, he now blames the de fenda nts for not having copies of the very documents he used to dra w the c on c lus ion s a t iss ue be fo re the c ourt . A c c or din g ly , h is atte mpt to n owbla

me de fe nd ants fo r h is
ow n o ve rs ig ht i s me ri tle ss. Ac c or din g ly , th e c ourt

be low wa s w e ll w ith in i ts dis c re tio n to dec lin e to gra nt s anc tio ns to F e rr on on the se g ro un ds
.No. 09-4407, Fe rro n v . Ec ho sta r S ate lli te , LLC , e t. a l.

Pag e 15 of 15 CO NC LU SION F or the a fo re me nti on e d r e a so ns : 1) the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt t o defe ndants Echostar , E-Mana g ement, 411 Web, and Dish Pronto is here by , AF F IRM ED ; and 2) the d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’ s d e n i a l o f

F e r r o n ’ s m o t i o nf

o r d i s c o v e r y s an c t i o n s i s a l s o , h e r e b y AF F IRM ED
.