IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

)

OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, )

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO, )

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE )

DEMOCRATS, NORTHEAST OHIO YOUNG )

BLACK DEMOCRATS, HAMILTON COUNTY )

YOUNG DEMOCRATS, LINDA GOLDENHAR, )

DOUGLAS BURKS, SARAH INSKEEP, )

CYNTHIA LIBSTER, KATHRYN DEITSCH, )

LUANN BOOTHE, MARK JOHN GRIFFITHS, )

LAWRENCE NADLER, CHITRA WALKER, )

TRISTAN RADER, RIA MEGNIN, )

ANDREW HARRIS, AARON DAGRES, )

ELIZABETH MYER,BETH HUTTON, )

TERESA THOBABEN, )

and CONSTANCE RUBIN, ) No. 1:18-cv-00357-TSB

)

Plaintiffs, ) Judge Timothy S. Black

) Judge Karen Nelson Moore

v. ) Judge Michael H. Watson

) Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

LARRY HOUSEHOLDER, Speaker of the )

Ohio House of Representatives, LARRY OBHOF, )

President of the Ohio Senate, and )

FRANK LAROSE, Secretary of State of Ohio, )

in their official capacities, )

)

Defendants. )

________________________________________ )

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY TRIAL (EXPEDITED BRIEFING REQUESTED)

Defendants, by and through their attorneys, respectfully move this Court to stay the trial 

of this case pending the final decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Common Cause v. 

Rucho (Sup. Ct. #18-422) and Benisek v. Lamone (Sup. Ct. #18-726). 

In support of this motion, Defendants rely on the facts, law, and arguments set forth in 

their accompanying Brief in Support. The undersigned counsel sought concurrence to the relief 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 185 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 1 of 15 PAGEID #: 11054
2

requested in this motion prior to filing. Counsel for plaintiffs oppose the requested relief. 

Counsel for Intervenors consent to the requested relief. 

Defendants also request expedited briefing of this motion in light of the upcoming trial 

date of March 4, 2019. Counsel for defendants conferred with counsel for plaintiffs regarding 

the filing of an expedited response. Counsel for plaintiffs consent to filing an expedited 

response. Counsel for Intervenors do not intend to file a response to the motion.

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully move the Court to stay the trial of this case 

pending final decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Common Cause v. Rucho (Sup. Ct. 

18-422) and Benisek v. Lamone (Sup. Ct. 18-726).

Respectfully submitted

DAVE YOST

Ohio Attorney General

By: /s/Phillip J. Strach

Phillip J. Strach*

N.C. State Bar No. 29456

phil.strach@ogletree.com

*Lead and Trial Counsel

By: /s/Michael D. McKnight

Michael McKnight

N.C. State Bar No. 36932

michael.mcknight@ogletree.com

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100

Raleigh, NC 27609

Tel.: (919) 787-9700

Facsimile: (919) 783-9412

Attorneys for Defendants Householder & Obhof

/s/Steven T. Voigt

Steven T. Voigt (0092879)

Principal Assistant Attorney General

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 185 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 2 of 15 PAGEID #: 11055
3

Ohio State Bar No. 0092879

Nicole M. Koppitch

Ohio State Bar No. 0082129

Ann Yackshaw

Ohio State Bar No. 0090623

Ohio Attorney General's Office 

Constitutional Offices Section

30 E. Broad Street, 16th Floor

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Tel: (614) 466-2872

Fax: (614) 728-7592

steven.voigt@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

Date: January 28, 2019

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 185 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 3 of 15 PAGEID #: 11056
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

)

OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, )

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO, )

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE )

DEMOCRATS, NORTHEAST OHIO YOUNG )

BLACK DEMOCRATS, HAMILTON COUNTY )

YOUNG DEMOCRATS, LINDA GOLDENHAR, )

DOUGLAS BURKS, SARAH INSKEEP, )

CYNTHIA LIBSTER, KATHRYN DEITSCH, )

LUANN BOOTHE, MARK JOHN GRIFFITHS, )

LAWRENCE NADLER, CHITRA WALKER, )

TRISTAN RADER, RIA MEGNIN, )

ANDREW HARRIS, AARON DAGRES, )

ELIZABETH MYER,BETH HUTTON, )

TERESA THOBABEN, )

and CONSTANCE RUBIN, ) No. 1:18-cv-00357-TSB

)

Plaintiffs, ) Judge Timothy S. Black

) Judge Karen Nelson Moore

v. ) Judge Michael H. Watson

) Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

LARRY HOUSEHOLDER, Speaker of the Ohio )

House of Representatives, LARRY OBHOF, )

President of the Ohio Senate, and )

FRANK LAROSE, Secretary of State of Ohio, )

in their official capacities, )

)

Defendants. )

________________________________________ )

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY TRIAL

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 185 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 4 of 15 PAGEID #: 11057
1

INTRODUCTION

On January 4, 2019, the United States Supreme Court announced that, in March of 2019, 

it will consider dispositive issues associated with claims identical to the claims in this case in 

Common Cause v. Rucho (Sup. Ct. #18-422) and Benisek v. Lamone (Sup. Ct. 18-726). On 

January 8, 2019, the Supreme Court ordered that appellants’ briefs on the merits are to be filed 

on or before February 8, 2019, and appellees’ briefs on the merits are to be filed on or about 

March 4, 2019, in each case. The specific dispositive legal issues common to both Rucho and 

Benisek are also dispositive issues currently before the Court in the instant case; namely, whether 

these redistricting disputes are justiciable and, if so, then what standards must courts apply when 

resolving these disputes. 

Just this past Friday, January 25, 2019, as described below, Plaintiffs in this case 

expressly relied upon Rucho and Benisek, and relied upon them heavily. Plaintiffs’ own briefing 

demonstrates that the outcome in Rucho and Benisek will be dispositive of this case. Indeed, this 

Court’s denial of the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in this case relied in part on the lower court 

decision in Rucho that is now on review to the Supreme Court. Order Den’g Mot. Dismiss [ECF 

No. 61]. In light of the Supreme Court’s expedited review in Rucho and Benisek, Defendants

now seek to stay trial in this matter until these cases are decided. 

This action should therefore be immediately stayed pending the Supreme Court’s final 

decisions in Rucho and Benisek. On January 4, 2019, the Supreme Court took several actions in 

Rucho and Benisek which warrant a stay here. First, and most importantly, the Supreme Court 

agreed to hear both cases on March 26, 2019, shortly after trial in this matter. Rucho and 

Benisek involve the same claims before the Court in this case. The Supreme Court is likely to 

resolve currently unanswered questions regarding the justiciability, legal standards, factual 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 185 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 5 of 15 PAGEID #: 11058
2

inquiries and appropriate remedy in these cases. Furthermore, it is critical to note that the 

Supreme Court notified the parties that it would postpone consideration of its jurisdiction over 

the plaintiffs’ claims in Rucho and Benisek until the hearing on the merits. 

Staying the proceedings in the instant case in light of Rucho and Benisek is in the best 

interests of the parties and the Court alike. If the Supreme Court finds that these redistricting 

claims are nonjusticiable, then this upcoming trial will constitute a waste of time, money and 

resources of the litigants, the Court, and the taxpayers of Ohio. But if the Supreme Court 

recognizes these claims are justiciable, its opinions in Rucho and Benisek will provide guiding 

and controlling principles attendant to the case at hand and may alter the factual and legal claims 

and presentations necessary to maintain or defend the case. 

Moreover, if this Court proceeds to trial and rules against Defendants, then any remedy it 

attempts to impose will likely be stayed while the Supreme Court considers, and ultimately 

issues opinions in Rucho and Benisek. There would be no possible benefit to anyone in 

proceeding with the scheduled trial and attempting to apply standards that do not yet exist, only 

to receive guidance from the Supreme Court on those standards after-the-fact of the trial. For 

these reasons, and as explained below, the Court should enter an order immediately staying the 

scheduled trial pending the Supreme Court’s final decisions in Rucho and Benisek.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control 

its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). This includes the power to 

consider the implications of judicial economy and the time and effort involved with counsel and 

litigants. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 185 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 6 of 15 PAGEID #: 11059
3

The Court considers four factors in determining whether “another case’s imminent 

disposition” warrants a stay. Caspar v. Snyder, 77 F. Supp. 3d 616, 644 (E.D. Mich. 2015) 

(summarizing Sixth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent). In determining whether to stay a 

case pending the outcome in other litigation, courts within the Sixth Circuit weigh “the 

potentiality of another case having a dispositive effect on the case to be stayed, the judicial 

economy to be saved by waiting on a dispositive decision, the public welfare, and the 

hardship/prejudice to the party opposing the stay, given its duration.” Michael v. Ghee, 325 F. 

Supp. 2d 829, 831 (N.D. Ohio 2004) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255).

ARGUMENT

It is well-established practice to stay a case where the dispositive issue in that case is 

simultaneously pending before a higher court. United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg. 

Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int’l Union, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 795 F. 

3d 525 (6th Cir. 2015) (noting consideration of a petition for rehearing was stayed “pending the 

Supreme Court’s Decision in M & G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett”); United States v. Prisel, 

316 F. App’x 37, 383 (6th Cir. 2008) (noting the “court granted Prisel’s motion to stay 

proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Gall v. United States”); Cooey v. 

Strickland, 479 F.3d 412, 415 (6th Cir. 2007) (“We later granted a stay pending the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Hill v. McDonough”); Buckeye Cablevision, Inc. v. United States, 438 F. 2d 

948, 950 (6th Cir. 1971) (noting review of an FCC order was stayed “pending the Supreme Court 

decision in United States v. Southwestern Cable Co.”); Thibault v. Wierszwski, No. 15-CV11358, 2017 WL 5195893, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 4, 2017) (staying proceedings pending 

outcome of certiorari petition); Arab Am. Civil Rights League v. Trump, No. 17-10310, 2017 WL 

2501060, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Jun 9, 2017) (staying case pending outcome of a petition for 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 185 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 7 of 15 PAGEID #: 11060
4

certiorari in Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump); United States v. Wells, No. 98-80994, 

2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12902 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2017) (holding case in abeyance after grant 

of certiorari and the Sixth Circuit’s decision in In re: Embry, 831 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2016) asking 

district courts to hold cases pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case); Pierson v. DHL 

Holdings USA, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27045 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 4, 2014) (staying 

proceedings pending outcome of certiorari petition); United States v. Conception, No. 88-80523, 

2013 WL 1788589, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 26, 2013) (noting the court stayed proceedings 

pending the grant of certiorari in Chaidez v. United States).

In this case, we know for certain the Supreme Court will decide two cases as to 

dispositive issues that are squarely before this Court in the instant case. As a result of this 

certainty, along with the fact all four relevant considerations strongly favor a stay, the Court 

should stay this matter pending the Supreme Court’s final decisions in Rucho and Benisek.

1. The Dispositive Nature of Rucho and Benisek Warrants a Stay

With respect to the application of the first factor, there is no doubt the outcomes of the 

dispositive issues in Rucho and Benisek will be dispositive here. In this case, the Court, in ruling 

on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, explained:

[T]he plaintiffs propose three metrics that could be incorporated alone or together 

into a viable legal standard to adjudicate partisan gerrymandering claims. . . . . At 

this stage of the litigation, we cannot decide whether these proposed 

frameworks are meritorious, and we will not hold that the plaintiffs’ claims are 

nonjusticiable merely on the possibility that their proposed tests may ultimately 

prove unworkable. We therefore hold that all of the plaintiffs’ claims are 

justiciable.

Doc. 61, PageID 658-59 (emphasis added) (citing Common Cause v. Rucho, 279 F. Supp. 3d 

587, 636 (M.D.N.C.)). At the same time, The Court explained:

Until the Supreme Court either adopts a manageable test for the 

constitutionality of a partisan gerrymander or definitively states that no such 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 185 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 8 of 15 PAGEID #: 11061
5

test exists, it is incumbent on the trial courts to continue evaluating whether 

standards proposed by litigants are manageable.

Doc. 61, PageID 659 n.3 (emphasis added).

Similarly, in their response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiffs’ 

rely heavily on Rucho and Benisek. Plaintiffs cite these cases dozens of times. See generally

Doc. 177. Moreover, they use these cases expressly to argue that these claims are justiciable. 

Doc. 177, PageID 8279-85. Thus, plaintiffs’ claims will rise or fall on the Supreme Court’s 

ruling on these two pending cases.

The Supreme Court is very likely to answer the basic questions that this Court noted 

remain open and that plaintiffs have relied upon in their summary judgment response. In Rucho 

and Benisek, the Supreme Court will almost certainly either “adopt[] a manageable test for the 

constitutionality of a partisan gerrymander” or “definitively state[] that no such test exists.”

Following the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision, trial courts like this will be relieved of 

their obligation to continue evaluating such standards themselves. 

There can be no dispute that Rucho and Benisek squarely present the same fundamental 

questions also confronting this Court in this litigation. In the appellants’ Jurisdictional Statement 

in Rucho, for example, the appellants characterize the questions presented for the Supreme Court 

as:

1. Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering 

claims.

2. Whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable.

3. Whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an 

unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

Jurisdictional Statement, Rucho et al. v. Common Cause et al., No. 18-422 (S.Ct.), at p. i. The 

first two questions before the Supreme Court are thus identical to the primary questions

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 185 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 9 of 15 PAGEID #: 11062
6

presented here. See, e.g., Defs.’ SJ Mem. at 1-10 (arguing plaintiffs’ claims are nonjusticiable), 

11-30 (arguing plaintiffs lack standing).

The Supreme Court will thus review the underpinning of these cases in the next 90 days. 

If Rucho and Benisek are reversed simply in part, then even that outcome will have a significant 

impact on this Court’s consideration of this matter. Significantly, the Supreme Court has 

indicated it has doubts about whether the federal courts had jurisdiction in either case now before 

it by postponing the question of jurisdiction. There would be no purpose of proceeding with a 

trial here in these circumstances. See Garland v. Orlans PC, No. 18-11561, 2018 WL 6074933, 

at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 11, 2018) (staying case where “if the Court were to move forward, there 

is approximately a 50% chance that doing so will be for no purpose”).

2. The Goal of Judicial Economy Warrants a Stay

With respect to the second factor, judicial economy is best served by staying any further 

proceedings in this case until after the Supreme Court issues its opinions in Rucho and Benisek. 

Those cases are set to be heard on March 26, 2019, and opinions will issue no later than June 30, 

2019, but given the similar litigation pending elsewhere around the country,1the likelihood 

remains strong that the Supreme Court will issue its opinion sooner than later. This Court should 

stay the trial in this matter and permit time for the Court, the parties, and counsel involved in this 

case to better address these matters upon receipt of guidance from the Supreme Court, if 

necessary at all. There is little point to holding a trial that could last the better part of two weeks, 

put the Court, parties and counsel through trial preparation and the expenses that comes with it, 

and then require post-trial briefing literally as the Supreme Court is hearing and considering two 

 

1 Similar claims are pending in federal court in Michigan and Wisconsin. The Michigan 

Intervenors filed a motion to stay similar to this motion. See Congressional and Legislative 

Defendants-Intervenors’ Emergency Motion to Stay Trial, League of Women Voters v. Johnson, 

Civil Action No. 17-cv-14148 (E.D. Mich).

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 185 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 10 of 15 PAGEID #: 11063
7

cases that will be controlling on this Court’s analysis of the facts and law. See Garland, 2018 

WL 6074933, at *2 (staying case where pending Supreme Court ruling will determine what law 

is controlling and where the ruling risks “requiring the parties and the Court to unnecessarily 

expend significant resources”). 

Holding a trial where the elements of the claim, the relevant factual issues, and the 

federal courts’ basic jurisdiction over the case are currently being reviewed by the Supreme 

Court potentially means this Court might decide a case over which it lacks jurisdiction, or the 

parties could be presenting facts and legal analysis that are about to be altered by the 

forthcoming Supreme Court opinions.

3. The Public Welfare Concerns Generated by a Trial Warrant a Stay

This trial will be a highly publicized proceeding with Ohio taxpayers spending significant 

resources. There can be no doubt that awaiting guidance from the Supreme Court before 

conducting such a proceeding while the Supreme Court is reviewing controlling and potentially 

dispositive cases bests serves the public welfare. 

If the Supreme Court determines that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over these 

claims or that judicially manageable standards do not exist, this case can be dismissed without 

trial and without posing any risk to the public welfare. If, on the other hand, these proceedings 

need not be dismissed following the Supreme Court’s decision, the parties will be able to 

proceed informed by whatever standards the Supreme Court will adopt for cases such as this one. 

Absent a stay, this case would likely proceed – with a very significant expenditure of time and 

taxpayer money – only to produce a result that must be vacated, either because plaintiffs’ claims 

are nonjusticiable or because the Court and the parties did not apply whatever standards the 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 185 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 11 of 15 PAGEID #: 11064
8

Supreme Court will adopt for such claims. An expensive, time-consuming, but ultimately 

pointless trial is not in the public interest.

4. The Lack of Hardship to Plaintiffs Warrants a Stay

With respect to the relative hardships of the parties, it is important to note that plaintiffs 

slept on their rights and waited seven years and three election cycles before bringing this action. 

Census day 2020 is fourteen months away, new data will be released in early 2021, and a wholly 

new process for drawing maps in Ohio will be in place for the 2020 redistricting cycle. There is 

no additional hardship on plaintiffs if this Court resolves this matter in the second half of 2019 

rather than the first half, and certainly no additional hardship that plaintiffs have not endured

during the last seven years when they were sleeping on their so-called rights. 

In any event, the Supreme Court will issue its decision in Rucho and Benisek at the latest 

on June 30, 2019—the last day of this term. The Secretary of State has determined that a map 

needs to be finalized by September 20, 2019 to accommodate the administrative obligations

associated with the 2020 election. See P. Wolfe Decl., Exh. A. Thus, based on the election 

calendar, the outstanding issues in this case can be resolved by September 20, 2019.

Under these circumstances, there is no good reason to proceed with the scheduled trial, 

and many good reasons not to.

CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant the 

motion and stay trial of this case pending the United States Supreme Court’s decisions on the 

dispositive issues in Common Cause v. Rucho (Sup. Ct. #18-422) and Benisek v. Lamone (Sup. 

Ct. 18-726).

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 185 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 12 of 15 PAGEID #: 11065
9

Respectfully submitted

DAVE YOST

Ohio Attorney General

By: /s/Phillip J. Strach

Phillip J. Strach*

N.C. State Bar No. 29456

phil.strach@ogletree.com

*Lead and Trial Counsel

By: /s/Michael D. McKnight

Michael McKnight

N.C. State Bar No. 36932

michael.mcknight@ogletree.com

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100

Raleigh, NC 27609

Tel.: (919) 787-9700

Facsimile: (919) 783-9412

Attorneys for Defendants Householder & Obhof

/s/Steven T. Voigt

Steven T. Voigt (0092879)

Principal Assistant Attorney General

Ohio State Bar No. 0092879

Nicole M. Koppitch

Ohio State Bar No. 0082129

Ann Yackshaw

Ohio State Bar No. 0090623

Ohio Attorney General's Office 

Constitutional Offices Section

30 E. Broad Street, 16th Floor

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Tel: (614) 466-2872

Fax: (614) 728-7592

steven.voigt@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

Date: January 28, 2019

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 185 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 13 of 15 PAGEID #: 11066
10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Michael D. McKnight, hereby certify that I have this day filed the foregoing document 

with the CM/ECF system which will provide notice to all counsel of record in this matter 

including the following:

T. Alora Thomas-Lundborg

Dale E. Ho

Theresa J. Lee

Emily Rong Zhang

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 

125 Broad Street, 18th Floor

New York, NY 10004 

Tel.: (212) 549-2500

athomas@aclu.org

dho@aclu.org

tlee@aclu.org

erzhang@aclu.org

Freda J. Levenson (0045916)

American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Fdtn.

4506 Chester Avenue

Cleveland, OH 44103

Tel.: (216) 472-2220

Facsimile: (216) 472-2210

flevenson@acluohio.org

Paul Moke (0014099) 

Cooperating Attorney for ACLU of Ohio 

Wilmington College*

1252 Pyle Center 

Wilmington, OH 45177 

Tel.: 937-725-7501 

paul.moke@gmail.com 

* Institutional affiliation for the purpose of 

identification only

Robert Fram

Nitin Subhedar

Jeremy Goldstein

Covington & Burling LLP

One Front Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

Tel.: (415) 591-6000

rfram@cov.com

nsubhedar@cov.com

jgoldstein@cov.com

Michael Baker

Perrin Cooke

Peter Rechter

Isaac Wood

Covington & Burling LLP

850 Tenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Tel.: (202) 662-6000 

mbaker@cov.com

pcooke@cov.com

prechter@cov.com

iwood@cov.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 185 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 14 of 15 PAGEID #: 11067
11

By: /s/Michael D. McKnight

Michael McKnight

N.C. State Bar No. 36932

michael.mcknight@ogletree.com

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1100

Raleigh, NC 27609

Tel.: (919) 787-9700

Facsimile: (919) 783-9412

Attorney for Defendants Householder & Obhof

37183650.1

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 185 Filed: 01/28/19 Page: 15 of 15 PAGEID #: 11068