You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Cleveland

Citations: 72 Ohio St. 3d 1523; 649 N.E.2d 833Docket: 95-594

Court: Ohio Supreme Court; May 23, 1995; Ohio; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

A complaint for a writ of mandamus was filed in this court, leading to a motion for a protective order and a motion to quash subpoenas, or alternatively, to limit the scope of depositions of Robert McAuley, Steven Koff, or any other representative of the relator. The motions aimed to restrict inquiries to the substance and circumstances surrounding the relator's requests for resumes and the city's refusal to provide those resumes. The court granted the motion to limit the scope of examination, effective May 19, 1995. Justice Pfeifer dissented from this decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Judicial Decision on Protective Orders

Application: The court granted the protective order to limit the scope of examination, indicating judicial discretion in managing discovery processes.

Reasoning: The court granted the motion to limit the scope of examination, effective May 19, 1995.

Judicial Dissent

Application: Justice Pfeifer expressed disagreement with the court's decision to limit the scope of examination, highlighting judicial dissent.

Reasoning: Justice Pfeifer dissented from this decision.

Scope of Depositions

Application: The court limited the scope of depositions related to the relator's requests for resumes and the city's refusal, thereby narrowing the range of permissible inquiries.

Reasoning: The motions aimed to restrict inquiries to the substance and circumstances surrounding the relator's requests for resumes and the city's refusal to provide those resumes.

Writ of Mandamus

Application: The case involves a complaint for a writ of mandamus, addressing the relator's requests for resumes and the city's refusal to provide them.

Reasoning: A complaint for a writ of mandamus was filed in this court, leading to a motion for a protective order and a motion to quash subpoenas, or alternatively, to limit the scope of depositions of Robert McAuley, Steven Koff, or any other representative of the relator.