[Cite as State ex rel. LetOhioVote.org v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2009-Ohio-5227.]

THE STATE EX REL. LETOHIOVOTE.ORG v. BRUNNER, SECY. OF STATE. 

[Cite as State ex rel. LetOhioVote.org v. Brunner, 

123 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2009-Ohio-5227.] 

Emergency motion to compel denied. 

(No. 2009-1310 — Submitted August 7, 2009 — Decided August 7, 2009.) 

ON EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} On August 6, 2009, the intervening respondents filed an 

emergency motion to compel relators to respond to the discovery and depositions 

requested by the intervening respondents. On August 7, 2009, relators filed a 

response to the motion. 

{¶ 2} Upon consideration of the motion and response thereto, the 

emergency motion to compel is denied. 

MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 

LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

PFEIFER, J., dissents. 

__________________ 

PFEIFER, J., dissenting. 

{¶ 3} I would grant the intervening respondents’ motion to compel 

discovery. In their discovery requests, intervening respondents J. Pari Sabety and 

Michael A. Dolan seek information and documents relating to the interests of 

relators and the financial allegations contained in relators’ amended complaint. In 

relators’ amended complaint, as well as in their merit brief and evidence, relators 

make representations about the interests and purpose of their organization, 

LetOhioVote.org, the interests of the other relators, the financial status of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

LetOhioVote.org, and various steps that LetOhioVote.org has taken to place a 

referendum on the ballot. For instance, relators assert: 

{¶ 4} “In anticipation of their Referendum Petition effort, Relator 

LetOhioVote.org has entered into an agreement with a national petition 

management firm to collect signatures for the Referendum Petition, at a cost of 

approximately $1.75 million, although that agreement is now on hold until this 

lawsuit is decided. Relators also have budgeted an additional $750,000 in costs 

related to the referendum effort, bringing the total amount that Relators intend to 

invest in the Referendum Petition effort to $2.5 million.” 

{¶ 5} Relators brought up the issue of their finances, and the intervening 

respondents deserve to know the basis of the relators’ claim. Moreover, in their 

answer to relators’ amended complaint, the intervening respondents claim that the 

relators lack standing. They are entitled to discovery on that issue. 

{¶ 6} This is not a fishing expedition: intervening respondents seek 

information directly related to the pleadings. It is unusual to deny a party the 

chance to gather evidence. Without the opportunity to gather evidence, the 

intervening respondents have no opportunity to contest standing. Would the 

allegation that relators are not the true party in interest in this case — that they 

may be relators for hire — affect this court’s consideration of standing? That is a 

novel issue; however, refusal to allow discovery is tantamount to ruling on an 

issue that the intervening respondents never had a chance to develop. 

{¶ 7} In their response to relators’ motion to file an amended complaint, 

intervening respondents stated, “On information and belief, funding for 

LetOhioVote.org derives in part from individuals and entities whose goal is to 

install casinos in the State of Ohio.” They are entitled to explore that allegation 

from an evidentiary standpoint. This court and the citizens of Ohio should be 

interested in the answer. If this state is to become a gambling center, we should 

look with caution at Nevada’s long history of lack of transparency in the identity 
January Term, 2009 

3 

of the true parties behind the development of the gambling industry. We should 

determine that from the outset, the truth will be told in Ohio. 

{¶ 8} Relators object to the short turnaround time from the intervening 

respondents’ request to the date of the requested depositions. In their letter 

refusing to participate in discovery depositions, relators wrote: “Moreover, as a 

practical matter, the deponents are unavailable on August 7 due to family and 

professional obligations as well as international travel. This should not come as a 

surprise given the lack of proper notice.” In State ex rel. Summit Cty. Republican 

Party Executive Commt. v. Brunner, 117 Ohio St.3d 1210, 2008-Ohio-1035, 883 

N.E.2d 452, this court essentially compelled the secretary of state, a busy person, 

to sit for a deposition in a case with a truncated briefing schedule. Today, we 

should have ordered relators — who requested the expedited briefing and 

discovery schedule — to respond to the paper discovery and to expect a telephone 

deposition from intervening respondents later this afternoon. 

__________________ 

 Langdon Law, L.L.C., David R. Langdon, Thomas W. Kidd Jr., and 

Bradley M. Peppo; and Jones Day, Douglas R. Cole, and Chad A. Readler, for 

relators. 

 Richard Cordray, Attorney General, Benjamin C. Mizer, Solicitor General, 

Alexandra T. Schimmer, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, and William C. Becker, 

Assistant Attorney General, for intervening respondents. 

______________________