Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
4700891
NAILAH K. BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
MOTION FOR...
July 16, 2018 13:50
vs.
Judge: STUART A. FRIEDMAN
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS AHUJA MEDICAL CENTER
ETAL
Pages Filed: 22
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
Counsel representing some of the plaintiffs in this consolidated litigation have repeatedly
made inflammatory and prejudicial statements to the media regarding this matter. To prevent this
from occurring as the litigation proceeds, Defendants University Hospitals Cleveland Medical
Center and the other University Hospitals-affiliated entities named in this consolidated litigation
(hereafter “Defendants”)1 move this Court for an order restricting counsel for all parties, both
Plaintiffs and Defendants, from making any public extrajudicial statements related to the claims
pending in this consolidated litigation. Such an order is needed to preserve the integrity of this
litigation and afford all parties a fair trial. Although most counsel before this Court have acted in
a professional manner that preserves the integrity and decorum of the judicial process, certain1
1 Defendant University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center (UHCMC) operates the UH Fertility Center and is the
only proper defendant in the actions consolidated before this Court.
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
counsel have engaged in a continued public media campaign that has a high likelihood of
prejudicing the impartiality of these proceedings. The inflammatory media statements of some
counsel have been clearly designed to taint public opinion and undermine the ability of potential
jurors to reach an unbiased verdict based on the evidence presented at trial. Accordingly,
Defendants respectfully request that this Court issue an order restricting all counsel representing
parties before this Court from making any public extrajudicial statements related to the pending
claims in this consolidated litigation. The grounds for this Motion are set forth in more detail in
the attached Brief in Support, along with a Proposed Order (Ex. A).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Rita A. Maimbourg_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Rita A. Maimbourg (0013161)
Robert C. Tucker (0013098)
Edward E. Taber (0066707)
Jane F. Warner (0074957)
Tucker Ellis LLP
950 Main Avenue—Suite 1100
Cleveland, OH 44113-7213
Telephone: 216.592.5000
Facsimile:: 216.592.5009
E-mail: rita.maimbourg@tuckerellis.com
robert.tucker@tuckerellis.com
edward.taber@tuckerellis.com
iane.warner@tuckerellis.com
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332/ Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER
RESTRICTING PUBLIC EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS BY COUNSEL
RELATED TO PENDING LITIGATION
I. INTRODUCTION
In our justice system, trials take place before a court, not through a public-relations battle
on the evening news. This is why Ohio’s Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit attorneys
participating in litigation from making public extrajudicial statements that are likely to prejudice
the litigation. See Prof. Cond. Rule 3.6(a) (“A lawyer who is participating * * * in the * * *
litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably
should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial
While most counsel representing plaintiffs have refrained from such conduct, some have
undermines the integrity of these proceedings and threatens the right to a fair trial by an impartial
jury. For example, one attorney who represents a number of plaintiffs and claimants has repeatedly
appeared in news stories making vitriolic statements intended to prejudice potential jurors against
University Hospitals:
2 WEWS News 5 Cleveland, Fertility Clinic: Hope Lost (Mar. 22, 2018),
https://www.iqmediacorp.com/ClipPlayer?ClipID=d12e6c72-b7e9-42c7-8726-
1f1c30f353b2&TE=%7b0%7d&_sm_au_=iVVnVS3JkWJnRMF0; Cleveland.COM, Apology Letter Sent to UH
Patients Affected by Freezer Incident Contains Few Details (Mar. 23, 2018),
https://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2018/03/apology_letter_sent_to_uh_pati_1.html
3 WKYC, Families Respond to University Hospitals Letter, Statement (Mar. 27, 2018),
https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/health/uh-failure/families-respond-to-university-hospitals-letter-statement/95-
532577247
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
• March 27, 2018: In another interview, counsel asserted that Defendants did not
care about their patients, called repeatedly for Defendants to be punished, and
suggested a criminal investigation was warranted.4
• May 18, 2018: The following week, counsel referred to the same motion (and this
Court’s ruling) as “UH’s Mother’s Day Massacre,” characterizing Defendants’
conduct as “outrageous” and “despicable.” (“It is great to see that UH’s Mother’s
Day Massacre has failed. These cases are about UH’s outrageous failure to keep a
freezer cold. Their attempt to make these medical malpractice cases requiring
medical experts was despicable.”)6
While Defendants recognize the sorrow this situation has caused impacted patients, that
does not empower certain counsel to make inflammatory and unprofessional extrajudicial
statements about this matter. Such statements—to both local and national media—create a
substantial and unfair risk that the proceedings before this Court will be compromised by tainting
4 AMERICAN News, University Hospitals Now Saying 4,000 Eggs, Embryos Affected in the Fertility Clinic Failure
(Mar. 27, 2018), https://youtu.be/S7ZujFKTxDg
5 FOX 8, University Hospitals Files Motion to Drop Fertility Clinic Lawsuits (May 11, 2018),
http://fox8.com/2018/05/11/university-hospitals-files-motion-to-drop-fertility-clinic-lawsuits/
6 WKYC, Judge Denies University Hospitals’ Request to Dismiss Fertility Clinic Lawsuit (May 18, 2018),
https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/health/uh-failure/judge-denies-university-hospitals-request-to-dismiss-fertility-
clinic-lawsuit/95-554381441
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
2
the views of potential jurors about University Hospitals and the events that underlie this
consolidated litigation.
To preserve the integrity of these proceedings and protect the rights of all parties to a fair
trial by an impartial jury, Defendants respectfully request an order prohibiting all counsel before
this Court from making public extrajudicial statements that relate to the pending claims in these
consolidated proceedings.8
public opinion. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 271 (1941). Because the right to a fair
trial depends on a fair and impartial jury, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that
extrajudicial statements by litigants and their counsel may infringe upon this right. See Gentile v.
State Bar ofNev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1070-76 (1991). When the right to a fair trial is threatened, courts
must take steps to “protect their processes from prejudicial outside interferences.” Sheppard v.
Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966). Where a court has evidence, as it does here, that unrestricted
extrajudicial statements by counsel will increase the volume of pretrial publicity, risking a
“carnival atmosphere,” the court should consider a restrictive order enjoining counsel from making
extrajudicial statements. See United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415, 423-24 & n.8 (5th Cir. 2000)
8 To avoid requiring that this Court become an arbiter of whether each and every extrajudicial comment by counsel
for either side is “prejudicial” to the other side—an inherently subjective question—Defendants believe the fairest
approach to all sides is to restrict counsel before this Court from engaging in any extrajudicial publicity concerning
this litigation.
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
3
(upholding order enjoining attorneys, parties, and witnesses from making prejudicial extrajudicial
statements).
Ohio courts have reached the same conclusion. The Supreme Court of Ohio has upheld
restraints on public extrajudicial statements when there was a “reasonable and substantial basis”
to believe that a party or counsel’s “media campaign could endanger the fairness of the
adjudication.” See In re T.R., 52 Ohio St.3d 6, 22-23 (1990) (upholding order enjoining parties and
counsel from communicating with media and public concerning the lawsuit). Indeed, as the T.R.
Court noted, “‘[t]he very purpose of a court system is to adjudicate controversies in the calmness
and solemnity of the courtroom according to legal procedures.’” Id. at 22 (alteration marks in
original omitted) (quoting Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 583 (1965)).
Applying T.R., the Eighth District Court of Appeals has upheld restrictions on public
scrutiny—the trial court issued an order that provided: “All parties to this action are hereby
restrained from issuing any public comments about the pending status of this litigation.” 8 th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 90889, 2008-Ohio-6154, ^ 4. On appeal, the Eighth District explained that these
orders are allowed when “extra-judicial statements are ‘reasonably likely’ to prejudice the
proceedings.” Id. at ^ 13. As long as the order is “narrowly tailored” and uses the “least restrictive
means available,” an order restricting extrajudicial communications falls “‘within the Court’s
prerogative to maintain appropriate decorum in the administration of justice and protect the rights
of the litigants from prejudice.’” Id. (quoting Affeldt v. Carr, 628 F. Supp. 1097, 1101 (N.D. Ohio
1985)). Finding that the extrajudicial statements by the parties “would be reasonably likely to
prejudice the proceedings,” the Eighth District upheld the order. Id. at | 15.
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
4
The Sixth District Court of Appeals did the same in In re K.Z.-P., 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-
15-24, 2016-Ohio-3091. There, the trial court entered an order enjoining a party from
Id. at ^ 10. Relying on Scaldini, the Sixth District found no abuse of discretion in issuing this order
because “the court had a reasonable and substantial basis to believe that extra-judicial statements,
including material appellant posted on the internet, would be reasonably likely to prejudice the
The order in In re K.Z.-P., which is itself based on a line of Ohio cases upholding
restrictions on extrajudicial statements by litigants, can serve as the basis for an order to protect
the public’s perception of University Hospitals and prejudice its right to a fair trial. This campaign
has included referencing “UH’s Mother’s Day Massacre,” characterizing routine litigation conduct
as “outrageous” and “despicable,” calling an apology letter to patients “garbage,” and asking a
reporter, “Whose head is going to roll?” See nn. 2-7, above. Should this continue, such vitriol
tainting the views of prospective jurors and potentially intimidating witnesses. The intense media
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
5
coverage and public interest in this litigation, coupled with some attorneys’ repeated efforts to try
their cases to television cameras instead of this Court, necessitates an order restricting counsel
from making public extrajudicial statements related to the pending cases in this consolidated
litigation.
The need for such an order will only increase as this litigation proceeds. The past several
months of media interaction by certain plaintiffs’ counsel demonstrate that, unless this Court
intervenes, certain counsel will continue to treat every development in the litigation—no matter
how routine—as an opportunity to try their case in the media, before a jury is ever empaneled.
Even the filing of answers to plaintiffs’ complaints prompted certain plaintiffs’ counsel to advise
the public through multiple media outlets that the “next step” was to depose members of University
To ensure the future integrity of these proceedings and preserve the right to a fair trial,
Defendants request that this Court issue an order restricting public extrajudicial statements by
counsel for all parties related to the pending cases in this consolidated litigation, and put an end to
the media campaign designed by some to sway the opinions of potential jurors about this matter
III. CONCLUSION
Inflammatory extrajudicial statements by certain plaintiffs’ counsel have already created a
substantial likelihood of prejudicing these proceedings. Defendants respectfully ask that this Court
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
6
put an end to this conduct by ordering counsel for all parties to refrain from engaging in any public
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Rita A. Maimbourg_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Rita A. Maimbourg (0013161)
Robert C. Tucker (0013098)
Edward E. Taber (0066707)
Jane F. Warner (0074957)
Tucker Ellis LLP
950 Main Avenue—Suite 1100
Cleveland, OH 44113-7213
Telephone: 216.592.5000
Facsimile:: 216.592.5009
E-mail: rita.maimbourg@tuckerellis.com
robert.tucker@tuckerellis.com
edward.taber@tuckerellis.com
iane.warner@tuckerellis.com
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
7
PROOF OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing was filed electronically on July 16, 2018. Service of this filing will
be made pursuant to Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(f) and 5(B)(3) by operation of the Court's electronic filing
system, and per the Court’s June 21, 2018 Case Management Order.
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
8
Bruce D. Taubman, Esq. brucetaubman@taubmanlaw.net
Brian M. Taubman, Esq. briantaubman@taubmanlaw.net
Taubman Law
Attorneys for PlaintiffKathryn Brown (Case No. CV 18 895170)
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
9
Susan E. Petersen, Esq. sen@netersenlegal.com
Todd Petersen, Esq. tp@petersenlegal.com
Petersen & Petersen
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Tara and Douglas Debevec (Case No. CV 18 895881)
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
10
Eric H. Zagrans, Esq. eric@zagrans.com
Steven M Goldberg, Esq. steven@smglegal.com
Jeffrey R. Wahl, Esq. jeffwahl@mindspring.com
Daniel R. Karon, Esq. dkaron@karonllc. com
Beau D. Hollowell, Esq. bhollowell@karonllc.com
Zagrans Law Firm LLC; The Goldberg Law Firm; Karon LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Shannon and Charles Eddy (Case No. CV 18 894910)
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
11
Eric H. Zagrans, Esq. eric@zagrans.com
Steven M Goldberg, Esq. steven@smglegal.com
Jeffrey R. Wahl, Esq. jeffwahl@mindspring.com
Daniel R. Karon, Esq. dkaron@karonllc. com
Beau D. Hollowell, Esq. bhollowell@karonllc.com
Zagrans Law Firm LLC; Karon LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Vicki and Kevin Hatch (Case No. CV 18 895554)
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
12
David M. Paris, Esq. dparis@nphm.com
Pamela E. Pantages, Esq. ppantages@nphm.com
David A. Herman, Esq. dherman@nphm.com
Nurenberg Paris Heller & McCarthy Co. LPA
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Nicole M. and Ryan Johnson (Case No. CV 18 897507)
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
13
Michael D. Goldstein, Esq. michael@gnglawvers.com
Kyle L. Crane, Esq. kyle@gnglawvers. com
Joseph N. Cindric, Esq. joseph@gnglawvers.com
Goldstein & Goldstein Co., L.P.A.
Attorneyfor Plaintiffs Lakesha and Czerny Miller (Case No. CV 18 895141)
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
14
David J. Michalski, Esq. david@michalski-law.com
The Michalski Law Firm, LLC
Attorneyfor Plaintiffs Michelle and Bryan Roman (Case No. CV 18 895862)
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
15
Brian Green, Esq. bgreen@shaperolaw.com
Michael I. Shapero, Esq. mshapero@shaperolaw.com
James Marx, Esq. jmarx@shaperolaw.com
Shapero & Green LLC
Attorneys for PlaintiffSuzanne Marie Wolf(Case No. CV 18 899563)
/s/Rita A. Maimbourg_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
One of the Attorneys for Defendants
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
16
madicello@dlcfirm.com; rfdicello@dlcflrm.com; mabramowitz@dlcfirm.com;
jmadden@iustinmaddenlaw.com; sscott@spanglaw.com; Stephen@finnevlawfirm.com;
matt@finneylawfirm.com; brucetaubman@taubmanlaw.net; briantaubman@taubmanlaw.net;
iotm@murrayandmurray.com; leslie@murrayandmurray.com; lflovd@prwlegal.com;
ibooker@prwlegal.com; mfrantzoldham@lawlion.com; lplakas@lawlion.com;
emack@lawlion.com; mklutinotyedwards@lawlion.com; cparker@rlbllp.com;
eric@zagrans.com; steven@smglegal.com; ieffwahl@mindspring.com; dkaron@karonllc.com;
bhollowell@karonllc.com; sep@petersenlegal.com; tp@petersenlegal.com;
icasey@dlcfirm.com; kabbarno@dlcfirm.com; Dparis@nphm.com; Ppantages@nphm.com;
Dherman@nphm.com; wsresq@aol.com; frank@feplaw.com; eric@feplaw.com;
athompson@shaperoroloff.com; nshapero@shaperoroloff.com; abotnick@shaperoroloff.com;
lbchristman@hotmail.com; pahessler@wegmanlaw.com; relyons@wegmanlaw.com;
paholdsworth@wegmanlaw.com; icmiller@bmdllc.com; vlferrise@bmdllc.com;
paulvwolf@hotmail.com; rick@alkirelawyer.com; dean@alkirelawyer.com;
ekennedy@weismanlaw.com; dgoetz@weismanlaw.com; dlansdowne@spanglaw.com;
sweaver@spanglaw.com; michael@gnglawyers.com; kyle@gnglawyers.com;
kcrane@kcranelaw.com; ioseph@gnglawyers.com; cbashein@basheinlaw.com;
trobenalt@robenaltlaw.com; i colan@robenaltlaw.com; tnelson@robenaltlaw.com;
iack@lgmlegal.com; paul@lgmlegal.com; tom@lgmlegal.com; crp@mccarthylebit.com;
crr@mccarthylebit.com; icohen@crklaw.com; emk@crklaw.com; david@michalski-law.com;
mdooley@omdplaw.com; atedor@omdplaw.com; rgembala@omdplaw.com;
brian@balserlaw.com; mshroge@pglawyer.com; Hector@martinezlawfirm.com;
leslie@martinezlawfirm.com; akabat@haberpolk.com; awolf@prwlegal.com;
ipeiffer@prwlegal.com; ihurst@basheinlaw.com; alevitt@dlcfirm.com; akeller@dlcfirm.com;
aprom@dlcfirm.com; ssavett@bm.net; llederer@bm.net; bpodell@bm.net;
ikelley@elkandelk.com; kyoung@elkandelk.com; astevendever@aol.com;
ifm@miznerfirm.com; kdougherty^niurymedmaLcom; bgreen@shaperolaw.com;
mshapero@shaperolaw.com; imarx@shaperolaw.com
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
17
EXHIBIT A
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
EXHIBIT A
Defendants University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and any other University
filed a Motion requesting that this Court issue an Order restricting counsel for the parties, both
Plaintiffs and Defendants, from making public extrajudicial statements related to the issues in the
pending litigation consolidated before this Court. Based on the examples cited in Defendants’
briefing, the Court finds that public extrajudicial statements by counsel for the parties,
particularly statements to the media, are reasonably likely to prejudice the proceedings before
this Court. In re K.Z.-P., 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-15-024, 2016-Ohio-3091, ^ 12-13, appeal
not allowed, 147 Ohio St. 3d 1412, 2016-Ohio-7455 (citing In re Scaldini, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 90889, 2008-Ohio-6154, | 13); see also In re T.R., 52 Ohio St. 3d 6, 22-23 (1990) (finding
a reasonable and substantial basis for believing a litigant’s media campaign could endanger the
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
In the interest of maintaining the integrity of these proceedings and protecting the rights
of all parties to a fair trial by an impartial jury, this Court ORDERS that all counsel and their law
firms shall refrain from making any public extrajudicial statements, in any medium or setting,
related to the issues in the pending litigation consolidated before this Court.1
IT IS SO ORDERED:
1 This Order prohibits discussing or disseminating any information, statement, public comments, or materials about
the consolidated proceedings before this Court, the status of litigation, any comments regarding any of the parties,
current and former, as well as the professionals who are or have been involved in the litigation, the Court or its
personnel, to any public communications forum or media, including but not limited to broadcast and print media,
radio, television, electronic communication including email, websites, social media, and voice mail, and from
otherwise providing any information related to these proceedings, either directly or indirectly, in any fashion
whatsoever. In re K.Z.-P., 2016-Ohio-3091, ^ 10.
Electronically Filed 07/16/2018 13:50 / MOTION / CV 18 894332 / Confirmation Nbr. 1439357 / CLJML
2