IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LORAIN COUNTY, OHIO GIBSON BROS. INC, e¢ a, ) ) — CASENO. 176V193761 Plaintiffs, ) JUDGE JOHN R. MIRALDI ) ) OBERLIN COLLEGE, ea. ) ) Defendants. ) MOTION OF WEWS-TY, ADVANCE OHIO, AND THE OHIO COALITION FOR ‘OPEN GOVERNMENT FOR ACCESS TO SEALED CASE DOCUMENT AND. WEWS-TV, Advance Ohio, andthe Ohio Cosltion for Open Government (collectively, the “Media Movants” hereby mave this Court, pursuant to Ohio Superintendence Rule 45(), for access to certain scaled materials inthe above-captioned matter (the “Lawsuit” Specifically, Media Movants sock an order unsealing Exhibit G to the affidavit of Cary M. Snyder, which was filed with defendaats" combined reply brie in suppor oftheir motions for summary judgment ("Exhibit @), € rt records in Ohio are presumptively open and may’ be sealed, or remain under seal, only ifa court, via specific, on-the-eeord factual findings concludes that, hy a showing of clear and convincing evidence, a higher interest outweighs the right ofthe pross and the public to access the records. Sup. R. 45; Vindicator Printing Co. ¥ Wolff, 132 Ohio St. 34 481, 2012-Ohiv-3328, 974 N.B2d 89, 124. Such findings were never ‘made with respect to Exhibit G, and no higher interest outweighs the news media’s and thepublic's consutional igh of access. Accordingly, the Court should grant Media Movants” request to ise an order unseating Exhibit G.* INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND. In Novernber 2016, a group of Oberin College (“Obedin) students participated ina protest of Gibson's Bakery (the “Bakery”, following an altereuon between Bukety employee Allyn D Gitson, Jr snd an AGian American Oberinsuulent, See Defendant Obetin College's Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSP”), at 4-5. Flyer disuibuted by Oberlin students in connection wit he protest fefered tothe Bakery a a racist establishment with along account oft al profiling and diserimsinaton,” Complaint at $36; MSI a6, ‘The Oberlin Stunt Senate subsequently published a resolution stating the same, Complaint at 48; MSF at 6, On [November 7, 2017, plaints ile this Lawsuit against Oberlin and Oberlin Dean Meredith Reimondo alleging that they, fer ala, ded and encouraged Obecin students in the publishing, of llegdly libelous stements panting the Bakery. Complain at f 100-09. Forpurposes of fitting discovery, the panties entered into a Stipulated Protetive Order on June 6, 2018 (Che “Protesive Order"), periting a party to designate documents. as confidential “upon making a good th detenninaion” tha! the documents contained information that shouldbe protested fom disclosure. Protective Onder a3, The Protelive Order stated that suc party-Feve dterminstons, however, were no to “be construed or presented as & Jodieial determination that any documents or information designated CONFIDENTIAL by ¥ As noted below, Defendants filed appeal from the verdict on the merits on October 8, 12019. However, this does not deprive the Court of ongoing jurisdiction over collateral ‘nates, including the Media Movants’ request 1 unseal at isue here. See Yee: Erie ‘County Sheriffs Dept , 553 N.E.2d 1354, 1355 (Ohio 1990) (“When a case has been appealed, the tral court retains all jurisdiction not inconsistent withthe court of appeals’ jurisdiction to reverse, modify, ot affirm the judgment).counsel o the parties is subject to protection... ntl such ime as the Court may rule upon a specifi document ot issue.” Prtetive Order at $16, ‘Among the discovery documents designated as “confidential” by plaintiffs was a forensic image of Allyn D Gibson, I's Facebook account, See Brit in Support of Motion to Unsal Exhibit G of Defendants’ Combined Summary Judgment Reply Brief (‘Defendans’ Motion”, at 4. A portion ofthat Facebook account—which defendants contend contain information regatding Mr Gibson's wow a tothe Bakery's reputation andi alleged racial profiting —wvas filed under seal as Exhibit G to defendants’ combined summary judgment reply rif, Defendants’ motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part. See Entry and Rung on Defendants’ Obecin College and Meredith Raimondo's Motion for ‘Summary Tudgment, at 29, The case proces to trial on the remaining claims. Jd. In June 2019, ajury found in favor of pists, awarding S11 milion dollars in eompenstory damages and $33 milion dollars in panitve damages. Market Awarded 844 Milton in Racism Dispute vith Oberlin College, News 5 CLEVELAND (last updated June 14, 2019), supetivuw newsSclevel lnews/ohe Lads : dlispute-with-oberlin-sellege. The Court Inter reduced the compensatory and punitive damages awards to total of $25 millon dollars and awarded plaints an additional $6.5 millon dollars in atrneys" fees, Se Judgment Entry on Award of Attomeys’ Fees and Litigation Expenses; Judge Reducesury Awards in Dispute With Obertin College, WALL STREET JOURNAL June 28, 2019), hips: si com/articlesude-reduces-jury-anands-in-dispute-with-obern-college: 111561752684, Defendants have appealed the verdict. Mary Kilpatick, Obert College Appeals S31 Million Gibson Bakery Decision, CLEVELAND.COM (Oct. 8, 2019), woman: 3/10/oberlin-college- -million-pibson-bakery- ‘The Lawsuit was highly publicized and covered by media outlets throughout Ohio and across the country, including by the Media Movants, See, ¢g4 Talal Ansati, Ohio Bakery Awarded $44 Million in Libel Verdit Against Oberlin College, WALL STREET JOURNAL (Sune 14,2019), ss Jeslohio-bakery-awa ilionsinsbe-easoa berln-college- 1560528172: Jenni Fink, Oberlin College President $44 Million Dollar Price ‘Tag on Fre Speech Should Worry Conservatives, Too, NEWSWEEK (June 27,2019), ntpssew newsweck convobein-okery-lawsuitrsimondo-sibson-verdist-L446305; Philip Mortis, Oberlin College Protest Farce Comes with Heavy Cost, CLEVELAND CoM (Hue 26, 2016), hitps//unvy.cleveland com/mors/2019/06/aberin-college-protest-fatee-comes-with-t= heavy-costphilip-monis,huml Alan Neubauser, A Liberal College Campus, a Local Bakery and «a Maltimition Dollar Defamation Verdict Exposes National Fault Lines, U.S. NEWS & WORLD Revoxr (uly 3, 2019), ht sws.com/news/polites/articles/2019-07-03/oberlin= lege-presdent-fights-back-against-defamation= (On August 28,2019, Oberin moved the Court for an order unsealing Exhibit G. The Court denied the request, in par, on the hass of the Protective Onder. See Entry and Ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Unseal Exhibit G of Defendants? Combined Summary Judgment Reply Brief, The Coust made no factual findings as to whether the continued sealing of Exhibit G was ‘necessary 0 serve compelling interest or whether continued sealing of the entirety of Exhibit G 1vas the leat restrictive means of preserving any such interest, WEWS-TY is an ABC-afliated television station, owned by Scripps Media, In., whieh serves the grester Cleveland metropolitan arez and which broadcasts nearly 40 hours of locally senna. 7produced newscasts each week, Advance Ohio is the publisher of cleveland.com and the online home of the Plain Dealer, the largest daily newspaper in Ohio. Both reported extensively on the Lawsuit and continue to report on Oberlin’s pending appeal. See, ¢g., Oberlin College Appeals Verdict that Awarded Batery More Than $31 Million, NEWS S CLEVELAND (last updated Oct. 9, 2019), htps:/avww.newsSelevel inews/local-newsoh-lrain‘oberlin-coll verict-that-awarded-bakery=44-million; Jury Awards $11 Million in Lawsuit Over Ohio College Dispute, NEWS S CLEVELAND (last updated June 8, 2019), JwowwnewsScleveland, loca-newsoh-loran(jury-awards-11-millio-in-lawsuit. ‘over chio-college-dispute; Emily Bamtforth, Gibson's Rakery Awarded More than $11 Million in Years-Long Legal Baile with Oberlin College, CLEVELAND.COM (June 7, 2019), ssw cloveland.com/news/2019/06) akery-awarded-more-han-1-million-in- -long-Legal-battle-with-oberin- ml Editorial Board, What are the Ramifications of the Gibson's Bakery v. Oberlin College Verdict, CLEVELAND.COM (June 27, 2019), ups: .corn/opinion/2019/06/what-are-the-ramifiations-of-the-gibsons-bakery= woberlin-college-verct-editoral-hourd-roundiable:himl, The Ohio Coalition for Open Government is nonprofit corporation whose supporters include etizans, Oho newspapers, Oia hroaeases, local news websites and others who stare a common interest in enforing and stuying Ohio's open records laws, including the right of access to court records. The coalition ‘vas formed in 1992 bythe Ohio News Media Foundation, a nonprofit corporation alitiated with the Ohio News Melia Association. “The Fist Amendment, Ohio Constitution, and Ohio Superintendence Rule 45 alfont members ofthe media, ike Media Movants, a the publica presumptive right of access to [judicial records and documents, See State ex rel. Cincinnat! Enguirer v. Winkler, 101 Ohio St. sens. 5244382, 2004-Ohio-1581, 805 NLE2d 1094, 498-9. The existence ofa stipulated protective onder entered into between litgans does not vitae these rights. See Shane Grp, In. Blue (Cross BlueShield of Mich, 825 F-34299, 305-06 (6a Ci. 2016). Accordingly, forthe reasons set forth oti, the Media Movants reapesflly request hat the Cort enter an onder mseaing EtibieG ARGUMENT 1. Thepress and the public have a presumptive right of access to Exhibit G. ‘Openness isn indispensable tribe” af on jus system, Richnond Newspaper Inc, Vrgnla, 448 US, $55, 569 (1980); se also Brown & Willianson Tobacco Corp». FIC, 710 F2d 1165, 1177 (6 Cit. 1983) ooting that openness “hasbeen a fundamental ature of the Amesian jail system} Ohio Const. Atle I, Section 16 (“Al cous shal be open." 1 guands aginst unmess and inequity in the appieation of laws, giving “assurance that cstlshed procedures ar being followed and hat deviations will come known” Press-Enfer Co». Superior Cone, 464 U.S, 501, 508 (1984) (“Press-Enterprise P). The US, Supreme Coutts long-resognized that the prot playa vit olen fasting public monitoring of the judicial system, acknowledging that “wile media representatives enjay the same right of 0085 the publi” they often “Tuneton) as surogates for the pli” by, for example, attending proceedings, reviewing cot documents snd reporting on judicial matters othe public atlnge, Richmond Newspapers, 448 US. ot 573 Particularly in eases of significant pubic interes and concer, like his on, the ability of the press and the publi “to review the facts presented tothe cout” is necessary to assure public confidence in the administration of justice. Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1178; see also Rudd Equip. Co., ine. v, John Deere Const, & Forestry Co., 834 ¥-3e $89, $93 (Sth Cir. 2016) semanas 6(tn evi cases as much asin crimins maders, the resolution of private disputes fequetly involves issues and remedies affecting thie parties or the general public, and seerecy serves ony to insulate the participants, mask impropriety, obscure incompetence, and conceal corruption”) (intemal quotations aa citations omitted). And, because “cous records often provide important, sometimes the only, bases or explanations for 2 court's devsin,” the presumpsion oF openness appli jus as strongly tothe accessibility of court dacuents—like exhibits fled in support oF ‘ions for summary judgments it does to court proceedings. Brown & Williamson, 710 24a 1177; see als, State ex ret Beacon Jounal Pub Co. ». Bond 8 Ohio S.3d 146, 2002- Obio-7117,4 15 (recognizing presumptive right of access to jurce questonnaies). “Only the most compeling reasons can justify non-disclosre offical rants.” Jn re Knowle News Senne! Co, Ine, 723 F-24470, 476 (th Cit. 1983). ‘A, Ihe First Amendment and the Ohjo Constitution afford the Media Movants ‘a qualified right of access to judicial records that is applicable to Exhibit G. “The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized thatthe right oF access guaranteed by the Fist “Amendment and by Atle I, Seotion 16 ofthe Obio Constitution extend to jul documents. Wanker, 101 Obi St 3.384 (*Acticle Tof the Obio Constitution guarantees the publi’ ight to open cout This ight of access found in bot the federal and sate Consttatons includes records and transcripts thal document the proceedings." se also Dream Feld, £.L.C.» Bogart, 175 Okio App. 34 165, 2008-Ohio-132, 885 N24 998,42 (Cours have wadtionally recopnized Use sgt of the public to inspect judicial reoords."), Because the “open cours” provision ofthe Ohio Constution creates an equivalent ight of public aeess wo cout proceedings und eords a “that accorded hy the Foe Speech and Frve Press Clauses ofthe First "Amsensment to the United States Constitution,” Bnd a 14 (quoting Cleveland ‘Traebuckowski, 709 N.E.2d 1148 (1999)), to determine whether the constitutional tight applies to eons 7«specific udicet record, Ohio counts Fook othe same complementary and related considertions of “experience” and “logic” recognized bythe U.S. Supreme Cour in Press Eater. Co. Seperior Cour, 478 US. 1,8 (1986) CPrest-Baerprise 1). See Bond at 38; se also, State ex rel. Scripps Howard Brood. Co.» Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Connon Pleas, J. Div. 13 bio St 4 (652 N-E2d 179 1995}, State ec rel Cinctnnat Bngurerv Bronson 191 Ohio App. 54160, 2010-Ohi0-5315, 945 N1B24 351, In applying these considerations to Exhibit G, courts around the county bove onsstetl eld shot “documents bite to court for is consideration in a simmary judgment motion are—ts a matter of lj document to which a stong presumption of ascss aches, under. the Fist Amendment" Lagosch Pyramid Co. af Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110,121 24 Cit2006); ses ase San Jose Mercury News, Ine. v. US. District Court, 187 134 1096, 1102 (at Cin.19% ("he unbroken string oF aos. eaves ile dub” that the “right of public access extends to material submited in conneetion with motions for suomay judgsent in evil cases pio to jugment"; Rushford. New Yorker Magacine, I, $46 F-28749, 282-53 (th Ci. 1988) nding hat “Pb]eeause summery judgment _xjudeats substantive rights and serves asa subsite for ral” the presumption of access tines to “documents filodinconnesion wi summary judgment motion in ail eas"), Infeed, the Sith Cireitreenlyexplins, “brit. fled withthe eur as wel as any reports oreshbis that accompany} those lings, are the sort of records that would help the public assess for itself the merits of judicial decisions... [and] therefore subject othe sang prosumption infor of openness.” Ine Nat'l Prescription Opt Lg, 927 ¥ 34 919,939 (6th Cit, 2019), Moreover, the tong presumplion in favor of acces to documents ke Exhibit G, submitted in support of «dispositive motion is not dependent on “the extent to which they sepanasen 8‘were relied upon in solving the motion” Lagasch, 435 F.3d at 123 (documents wseé by nites moving for, oF opposing, summary judsment shoul not romain under sal absent the ‘nas competing reasons." (quoting Joy»: North, 692 F:24 $8, 893 (24 Cin. 1982)}; seas, Wo 132 Ohio 8138 48, 2012-Obi- 3328, 974 NE24 89,427 (There ino requirement shot a eco or davument mst bed hy the sunt in dstsion to be atte ashe prestanption of public access”) ‘Where, shee the conttatona right applies, the presumption oF access can be overeome only spe, onthe record findings are made demonstrating that ‘loure s esse to preserve higher values andi narrowly ulored to serve that intrest" Press- reprise, 478 US. 13-14 (quoting Press-Enterprise J, 464 US, a 10), Inthe context of cil iigation “only tae seers information eovered by a recgnized privilege (Sich asthe attomney-client privilege), and information required by statute to be maintained in confidence: (such as the name of a minor victim of a sexual assault) is typically enough to overcome the presumption of acces Shane Grp, 825 F.3d ot 308 (internal quotations and tation omit, ‘The party seckng closure or salng bers « “heavy burden” to ovrsome such srtiny, and must “analyze in dei, document by document, the propriety of serey, providing reasons and legal citations” He 308-06 [B. Objo Superintendence Rule 45 affords the Media Movants # qualified right ‘of access to Exhibit G, i addition w Ue constuuional presumption oF access, Oo Super rence Rule 43(4) also recognizes a fundamental presumption of open access to al judicial documents, including ‘the summary julgment exhibit at issue here, Sup. R. 45 (“Court records are presumed open to ublic access." see aso Sup. R. 44(B) and (C1) (defining “eourt records” to include, in part, “a document and infomation in a document submitted to a cout or filed with a clerk of court in secon °«judicial ation or proceeding, including exhibits, pleadings, motions, orders, and judgments *), According to the Ohio Supreme Court, “the Rules of Superintendence reganting public aveess to court records should enjoy abroad judicial construction in favor of access to records, ‘whieh promotes openness transparency of process, and accountability.” State ex rel. Cincinnati Enguirer ». Eyons, 140 Ohio St 347, 2014-Ohio-2354, 14 N.t.8a 989, 918 Pursuant to Superintendence Rule 45, @ court may restrict pubic access t all or part of a cout record only “ft finds by clear and convincing evidence that the presumption of atiowing public access is outweighed by ahipher interest” Sup. R. 45(E)(2) Stave ex rel, Cincinnati nquirer v. Hunter, 191 Dist, Hamilton No, 130072, 2013 WL $$8750, 2013-Ohio-4459, 4 11 (granting release of juvenile court records in the absence of “clear and convincing evidence thet the presumption of allowing public aovess is outweighed by a higher interest”), Prior to daing so the court must consider: (a) Whether public policy is served by rsticting pubic access; (©) Whether any state, federal, or common law exempts the document or information ftom public acvess; (©) Whether factors that support restiction of public access exist, including risk of injury to persons, individual privacy rights and Interests, proprietary business information, public safety, and {imess ofthe adjudicatory process. Sup. R. 45(E)2}(0)40); Wolf, 132 Ohio S34 481, 2012-Obio-3328, 974 N.E.2d 89, at $5 32-34, Inthe event the cout finds it nocessery to restrict public acoes, it must do so using “the least restrictive means available,” which typically requires “(rledactng the information rather ‘than limiting public aeooss tothe entire document.” Sup. R. 45(E)(3) swson2sen. 10II, The presumptions in fayor of publie aecess to Exhibit G are not overcome; Ext G should be unseated. Exhibit G was fled as an exhibit to defendants’ combined reply in support of their motions for summary judgment, As such, it flls squarely within the category of judicial records and documents to Which presumption of openness attaches under the First Amendment and the Ohio Consittion. Moreover as an exhibit” that was “submited 1 aeourt or filed with clerk ‘cour ina judicial action or proceeding,” constitutes a “cae recon” to which a presumption of openness applies uner Superntendence Rule 45, er, Exhibit G was filed ner seal onthe basis ofthe patios stiplsied Protective ‘onde. However, the Protetive Onder was designed to Filia discovery by allowing the pacts to determine ia the fist instance the appropriate level of confidentiality applicable documents exchanged between the parties dung the course of discovery. “There is a stark disfeence botween so-called “protective oer” entered pursuant to... discovery. .on the one tun, and orders o sel court ecards on the other” Shame Grp, 825 P34 a¢ 308. While “seers” may, in many cates, be fine a the discovery stage,” once the document is filed with the court the presumptions of public acces apply; the pres and he public have “a tong intecest in obtaining the information contained in the court record.” Jd (i sa quotations and citations ome); see also Cininnat Enquirer. Dinkelaker, 44 Ohio App3d 725, 730-31, 761 N.E.24 656, 659-660 (Ist Dist, 2001) (holding that “iscovery material becomes a public record when i tesames part ofthe cour record") [Aparty may not waive the public's igh to access cour records by filing a document under seal pursuant toa stipulated protetive order. See Rudd up. Co, 834 F.34 at $95, ‘The “court's obligation to keep its recor ope fo pubic inspection is not conditioned on an objection from anybody.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d st 307. Nor may a party rely on stipulated sanosmasit iprotective order to relieve ito ts burden under the Fist Amendment, Ohio Constitution, or ‘Superintendence Rule 45 to atiulate the compelling interes that it contends jusity sealing ‘See bre Natl Presription Opate Lig, 927 F.3d a 940-41 (Yemanding to dsc court to sake specifi factual findings ast pleadings filed under seal pursuant to ¢ protective order, and aaviing the court “to ber in mind that the party seeking t ile under seal must provide a compelling reason to do so and demonstrat thatthe sal is marowiy tailored to serve that reason") Because Exhibit G was filed under sel purportedly on the basis ofthe parties’ Protective Ode, the Court was not asked to and dd not make the requisite spec, onthe record findings _as to whether sealing was “essential to preserve higher values” and, if so, whether wholesale sealing of Exhibit G was narrowiy tailored to serve any such interest. See Press-Enterprise Il, 478 U.S. at 13-14, Nor, prior to scaling, did the Court make a finding a to whether “by clear and convincing evidence ... the presumption of allowing public access [under Sup. R. 45(A)] is ‘outweighed by «higher interest” and, ifs, whether sealing the document would be “the least resritive means available" to protect the interest, per the mandates of Sup. R.45(E}2)-3). Public interest i this Lawsuit and, specifically, its allegations of discrimination and ‘cial profiling by a century-old neighborhood bakery. on the one hand, and of alleged impropriety on the part of large educational institution on the other, is substantial, The ease thas gamered significant media attention from both local nd national news outlets. See, e., BI Dickson, How a Siall-Town Bakery in Ohio Became a Lightning Rod in the Culture Wars, ROLLING STONE (July 18, 2019), hups://waw.rolingstone.com/culturcculture-features‘obertin: silbson-hakery-protestdefamation-suit-controversy.culture-war-850404/; Conor Friedersdor, From Public Shame tothe Courtroom, Tie ATLANTIC June 15,2019), seessa20n1 2iupsswsnw theatlantc.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/the-publicly-shameat-sue-oberlin-college- _verdiew/591379/; Oberlin Helped Studemis Defame a Bakery, a Jury Says, New YORK TIMES (Gune 14, 2019) hitps/Avaw.nytimes.com/2019/06/1Sus/oberin-bakery-lawsuit html; Sammy Westfall & Asha Pribar, Oberlin Libel Trial Ratles Community, Raises Questions About Free ‘Speech, TOLEDO BLADE (June 15, 2019), _itps/‘w.toledablade com/ocaledveation/2019/06/1S/oberin-college-gibsons-bakery-Hibel- lavwsuitrace-community-fce-speech/stories/20190614189. Interest in the Lawsuits likely to remain high asthe ease proceeds on appeal. Based on documents filed withthe Court, Exhibit G is believed to contain information directly related to the allegations of racial profiling that spurred the student protest thet is atthe heart of his Lawsuit and, about which, the public has aright to know. Deferdants’ Motion, at 4 Indeed, “{the remedies or penalties imposed by the court will be more readily accepted, or corrected if erroneous, ithe public has an opportunity to review the facts presented to the court.” Brown & Wiliamson, 710 F.2d at 1178 Continued sealing of Exhibit G cannot be justified. Plaintiffs have not met their burden ‘under the Fitst Amendment, Ohio Constitution, or Superintendence Rule 45, and the Court has ‘ot weighed the purported interests in favor of sealing against the public’ strong. presumptive tight to inspect tis judicial record, For these reasons, Exhibit G should be unsealed. Even assuming, arguendo, that the Court were to detertine—via specific, onthe-revord factual findings— that countervsiling interests overcome the public's rights of access to Exhibit G, any ‘continued restrictions must be “narrowly tllored to serve that interest” and must be “the least, restrictive means available,” for example, “[rledaetfion] . rather than limitfed] public access to the entire document" See Sup. R. 45(E)G3); ee also Press-Enterprise 1,464 U.S. at S11, 513 ssreoaser B(noting that where jurors have a privacy intrest in their answers during voir dire, “[]he trial judge should seal only such parts of the transcript as necessary to preserve the anonymity ofthe individuals sought to be protected"); Frishy v. Schult, 487 U.S. 474, 485 (1988) (nasrow tailoring “targets and eliminates no more than the exact sourve ofthe ‘evil’ it seks to remedy”) CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Media Movants respectfully request thatthe Court unseal Exhibit G to defendants’ combined surmmary judgment reply Dated: October 31, 2019 Respectfully submitted, Hh Bub ‘Michael K, Farrel (0040941) ‘Melissa D. Bertke (0080567) Baker & HOSTETLER LLP Key Tower 127 Public Square, Suite 2000 Cleveland, OF 44114 Phone: (216) 861-7865 Fax: 216) 696-0740 XKaile Townsend (pro hac vice pending) ‘Dit ReponteRs CosiotrTk FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS 1156 15th St. NW, Suite 1020 ‘Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 795-9300 Fax: 202) 795-9310 Counsel for Media Movants amanasny 4OF SERVICE certify that a copy ofthe foregoing was served this 21st day of October, 2019, vise ‘mail, pursuant to CW.R. 5(B)(2\t) ofthe Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, upon the following: Owen 5, Rae Seegeling Bol Cale Matthew W. Onest Krupa, Wilkins, Griffiths & Dougherty COnLPA 49775 Munson Steet, NW P.O. Box 36903 (Canton, OF 36963 orarccakwed.com Jeakvell @ewgd.com tinooee mkv cora rmonest@kwed.eom Lee, Plakas| Brandon W. McHugh Jeananite M. Ayoub ‘Teangas, Plas, Mannos & Raies 230 Market Avenue South th Floor Canton, OH 44702 Iplakas@lawtion.com bmchugh@laylion.com jayoub@lawlion.com James N. Taylor James N. Taylor Co,, LP.A. 409 Kast Avenue, Suite A Elyria, OH 44035 taylor(ajamestayloripa.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ronald D. Holman, 11 Tule A. Crocker Cary M. Snyder William A. Doyle Josh M. Mandel ‘Taf Stetinius & Hollister LLP 2200 Public Square, Suite 3500 Cleveland, O11 443 14-2302 tholmanghtaftinw.com jerockerayatlaw:com esaydenaitaRlaw com wabyle@taftaw.com Jandel Qtailaw.com Irene Keyse-Waller Benjamin C. Sasse TUCKER ELLIS LLP 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100 Cleveland, O11 44113 jkeyse-walken@@tuckerelliscom Richard D, Panza Matthew W, Nakon Rachelle Kuznicki Zidar Maloric A. Alverson. ‘Wilbert V Farrell, 1V Michael R. Nakon ‘Wickens, Herzer, Panza, Cook & Batista Co 35765 Chester Road ‘Avon, OH 44011-1262, RPanzai@ WiekensLaw.com Niakenta)WiekensL aw. com RZidar(@WickensLaw.com “MAlnerson@ WickensL-aw com ‘WFarrelli@ Wickenslaw.com MRNakon@WiekensLaw.com Co-Counsel for Defendants bern College aku Oberlin College and Conservatory, and Meredith Raimondo Bobo felisa D. Bertke Counsel for WEWS-TV, Advance Ohio, and tive Ohio Coalition for Open Government