1 

 

MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

FOR EXPEDITED HEARING 

Defendant Judge Joseph Kirby does not oppose this Court hearing this matter on a 

reasonably expedited basis. However, Defendant objects to framework proposed in Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Speedy Trial on Declaratory Judgement, which would have this Court hold a bench 

trial on the merits of this case in less than one month. 

 First, an evidentiary hearing prior to a determination on Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss 

would be premature. Defendant has urged that this Court should abstain from hearing the claims 

asserted by Plaintiffs because those claims invite this Court to directly interfere with pending state 

court proceedings. In fact, Plaintiffs are asking this Court to step in front of the state court of 

appeals and review Judge Kirby’s decision before the court of appeals has a chance to do so. 

Defendant has also raised the fact that Plaintiffs Shaul and Doe do not have standing in this case, 

as Judge Kirby has not issued a decision regarding either Plaintiff (one of the Plaintiffs has not 

even filed an application with the Court for a name change). These are important threshold issues 

that must be determined before any hearing on the merits can occur. No evidentiary hearing should 

be scheduled until this Court rules on Defendants’ Motion. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

STEPHANIE LEIGH WHITAKER, et al. : Case No. 1:18-cv-00540-WOB 

 : 

 Plaintiffs, : 

 : Judge William O. Bertelsman 

v. : 

 : 

JUDGE JOSEPH W. KIRBY, : 

 : 

 Defendant. :

Case: 1:18-cv-00540-WOB Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/01/18 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 265
2 

Plaintiffs have also been unclear about the actual relief they are seeking. Plaintiffs have 

indicated that they are not asking for this Court to review and substantively overrule Judge Kirby’s 

decision. Thus, the issue becomes: what do Plaintiffs actually want this Court to order Judge Kirby 

to do? Until this Court decides Judge Kirby’s Motion, the issues that may (or may not) be relevant 

during hearing on the merits are unclear. Plaintiffs’ proposal that an evidentiary hearing should 

be scheduled within 21 days of the filing of Defendants’ Reply (which would be less than two 

weeks from now) is clearly unreasonable. If this Court finds that at least some of Plaintiffs’ claims 

survive Defendant’s Motion, Defendant would not oppose some form of hearing on the merits 

within a reasonable period of time (45 – 60 days) from the date of the decision. 

 In addition, if there is a hearing in this case, the Court and parties should confer beforehand 

as to the scope and parameters of the hearing. As this Court is aware, a court speaks only through 

its decisions and judgment entries. This means that Judge Kirby should not be subject to crossexamination regarding the underlying reasons for his decisions regarding name-change 

applications for transgender minors. Likewise, if it is Plaintiffs’ position now that they are not 

seeking to overturn Judge Kirby’s substantive decision regarding the name change application of 

Plaintiff Whitaker (or predetermine the name change applications of the other Plaintiffs), the 

parties should discuss the actual relief that Plaintiffs are seeking before the hearing. These issues 

should be addressed before a hearing occurs, which should preclude scheduling on the hyperexpedited schedule that Plaintiffs suggest. 

CONCLUSION 

 As set forth above, Defendant urges this Court not to set a hearing date until it has made 

its determination of Judge Kirby’s Motion to Dismiss. To the extent that the Court finds that there 

are issues on which an evidentiary hearing is appropriate, Defendant does not oppose a reasonably 

Case: 1:18-cv-00540-WOB Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/01/18 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 266
3 

expedited schedule, so long as that schedule provides sufficient time for Defendants to fully 

prepare and occurs only after there is a clear understanding between the parties regarding the scope 

of the hearing and relief sought by Plaintiffs. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Aaron M. Glasgow 

J. Stephen Teetor (0023355) 

E-mail: jst@isaacwiles.com 

Aaron M. Glasgow (0075466)		

E-mail: aglasgow@isaacwiles.com 

ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, LLC		

2 Miranova Place, Suite 700		

Columbus, Ohio 43215		

T: (614) 220-5170 / P: (614) 365-9516		

Attorneys for Defendant 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE		

I hereby certify that on October 1, 2018, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. 

Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. 

Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.		

/s/ Aaron M. Glasgow 

Aaron M. Glasgow (0075466) 

Case: 1:18-cv-00540-WOB Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/01/18 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 267