UH Fertility Case Gag Order

Motion No.
4700891
NAILAH K. BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CUERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Court of Common Pleas
MOTION FOR...
July 16, 2018 13:50
By: RITA A. MAIMBOURG 0013161
C onfirmation Nbr. 1439357
JOHN BRICKEL ET AL CV 18 894332
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
JOHN and KRISTINE BRICKEL, ) CONSOLIDATED CASE NO.

) CV-18-894332
Plaintiffs, )
) JUDGE STUART A. FRIEDMAN
v. )
) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF ) ORDER RESTRICTING PUBLIC
CLEVELAND, et al., ) EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS BY
) COUNSEL RELATED TO PENDING
Defendants. )
LITIGATION
THIS MOTION APPLIES TO ALL CASES IN THIS CONSOLIDATED ACTION
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.
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
Attorneys for Defendants
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
likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”).
While most counsel representing plaintiffs have refrained from such conduct, some have
engaged in an extraordinary and inflammatory media campaign against Defendants that
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:
• March 22-27, 2018: Responding to an apology letter sent to patients, counsel

suggested Defendants were “behaving like an airline that just had a plane crash”
and exhibiting “phony transparency.”2 In another reaction to the apology letter, he
asked, “Whose head is going to roll?”3
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
• 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 11, 2018: Referring to Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on Civ.R.

10(D)(2)’s affidavit of merit requirement, which was filed under the Ohio Rules of
Civil Procedure, counsel characterized the motion as motivated by malice and spite
towards patients: “This is such cynical, despicable conduct by this hospital; they
should be ashamed. And they did it just before Mother’s Day. Think about that
message to people. You wanted to be a mother; we feel so bad about that, but you
don’t have a lawsuit because we think you have to file this kind of lawsuit. * * *
They put out a video where [a doctor] apologizes, takes responsibility. They send
letters; it’s all garbage.”5
• 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
• July 3, 2018: And in reaction to Defendants filing answers to the complaints,

counsel asked the audience of a local news station to imagine someone had turned
off an alarm in a cardiac or intensive care unit, stating: “People would be dead, and
people would be prosecuted.”7
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
7 WEW S News 5 Cleveland, UH Denies Liability for Failure (July 3, 2018),

https://www.iqmediacorp.com/ClipPlayer?ClipID=8a929c67-9a41-4b5a-94bb-95344d46cb9c&TE=%7b0%7d
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
II. LAW AND ARGUMENT
A. This Court can order reasonable restrictions on extrajudicial

statements to protect the integrity of the judicial process and the right
to a fair trial.
Civil disputes are resolved in courtrooms, not through media campaigns designed to sway
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.
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
statements about pending litigation. In In re Scaldini—a case involving considerable media
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.
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
discussing or disseminating any information, statement, public comments,

or materials about this pending cause, 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,
or about any minor child to any public communications forum or media,
including but not limited to broadcast and print media, radio, television,
electronic communication including email, websites, and voice mail, and
from otherwise providing any information about this cause or the minor
child either directly or indirectly in any fashion whatsoever.
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
proceedings.” Id. at | 13.
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 integrity and fairness of the proceedings before this Court.
B. There is a substantial likelihood that Defendants will be materially

prejudiced if the inflammatory statements cited above are allowed to
continue.
As discussed, certain counsel have engaged in a sensationalized media campaign to damage
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
directed towards University Hospitals is substantially likely to prejudice these proceedings by
tainting the views of prospective jurors and potentially intimidating witnesses. The intense media
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
Hospitals and that “new records” are expected to come out.9
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
and the parties involved.
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
9 WEWS NEWS 5 CLEVELAND, UH Denies Liability for Failure (July 3, 2018),

https://www.iqmediacorp.com/ClipPlayer?ClipID=8a929c67-9a41-4b5a-94bb-95344d46cb9c&TE=%7b0%7d
6
put an end to this conduct by ordering counsel for all parties to refrain from engaging in any public
extrajudicial statements related to the pending cases in this consolidated litigation.
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
Attorneys for Defendants
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.
Stuart E. Scott, Esq. sscott@spanglaw.com

Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs John and Kristine Brickel (Case No. CV 18 894332)
Bruce D. Taubman, Esq. brucetaubman@taubmanlaw.net

Brian M. Taubman, Esq. briantaubman@taubmanlaw.net
Taubman Law
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Siddhi & Gajanan Agre (Case No. CV 18 896700)
Mark A. DiCello, Esq. madicello@dlcfirm.com

Robert F. DiCello, Esq. rfdicello@dlcfirm.com
Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq. mabramowitz@dlcfirm.com
Adam J. Levitt, Esq. alevitt@dlcfirm.com
Amy E. Keller, Esq. akeller@dlcfirm.com
Adam M. Prom, Esq. aprom@dlcfirm.com
DiCello Law Firm
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Amber and Elliott Ash (Case No. CV 18 894343)
Justin F. Madden, Esq. jmadden@iustinmaddenlaw.com

Justin Madden Law
Attorneyfor PlaintiffMarvianne Barrett (Case No. CV 18 895207)

Taubman Law
Attorneys for Plaintiffs William and Laurie Brawley (Case No. CV 18 898367)
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 Maria and Jason Bring (Case No. CV 18 900375)
Stephen E. Imm, Esq. stephen@finneylawfirm.com

Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq. matt@finneylawfirm.com
Finney Law Firm, LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Carl Rikard Brobeck and Marius Proitz (Case No. CV 18 895680)
8
Taubman Law
Attorneys for PlaintiffKathryn Brown (Case No. CV 18 895170)
Leslie O. Murray, Esq. leslie@murrayandmurray.com

John T. Murray, Esq. iotm@murravandmurray.com
Murray & Murray Co., LPA
Attorneys for Kurt and Amanda Castillo (Case No. CV 18 896574)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Molly and John Cotofan (Case No. CV 18 898643)
Leslie O. Murray, Esq. leslie@murrayandmurray.com

John T. Murray, Esq. iotm@,murravandmurrav■com
Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A.
Attorneys for Brent and Heather Christman (Case No. CV 18 897208)
Lydia M. Floyd, Esq. lfloyd@prwlegal .com

James P. Booker, Esq. ibooker@prwlegal.com
Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq. ipeiffer@prwlegal.com
Adam B. Wolf, Esq. awolf@prwlegal.com
Peiffer Rosca Wolf Abdullah Carr & Kane
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Laurel and Dustin Clark (Case No. CV 18 894339)
Megan J. Frantz Oldham, Esq. mfrantzoldham@lawlion.com

Lee E. Plakas, Esq. lplakas@lawlion.com
Edmond J. Mack, Esq. emack@lawlion.com
Maria C. Klutinoty Edwards, Esq. mklutinotyedwards@lawlion.com
Christopher L. Parker, Esq. cparker@rlbllp.com
Tzangas Plakas Mannos Ltd.; Roderick, Linton, Belfance, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jessica and William Crissman (Case No. CV 18 894473)
Eric H. Zagrans, Esq. eric@zagrans.com

Steven M Goldberg, Esq. steven@smglegal.com
Jeffrey R. Wahl, Esq. ieffwahl@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 Danielle and Kevin Cross (Case No. CV 18 894335)
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)
Mark A. DiCello, Esq. madiceno@dlcfirm.com

Jim Casey, Esq. jcasev@dlcfirm.com
Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq. kabbarno@dlcfirm.com
DiCello Law Firm
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane and John Doe (Case No. CV 18 895259)
Mark A. DiCello, Esq. madicello@dlcfirm.com

Jim Casey, Esq. icasev@dlcfirm.com
Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq. kabbamo@dlcfirm.com
DiCello Law Firm
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane & John Doe (Case No. CV 18 896709)
Stephen Imm, Esq. stephen@finnevlaw.com

Matthew Okiishi, Esq. matt@finnevlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs John and Jane Doe (Case No. CV 18 896367)
James M. Kelly III, Esq. ikellev@elkandelk.com

Kimberly C. Young, Esq. kvoung@elkandelk.com
A. Steven Dever, Esq. astevendever@aol.com
Elk & Elk Co., Ltd.; A. Steven Dever Co., LPA
Attorneys for PlaintiffJane Doe Fertility Patient (Case No. CV 18 897272)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane and John Doe (Case No. CV 18 900374)
10
Jeffrey R. Wahl, Esq. jeffwahl@mindspring.com
Zagrans Law Firm LLC; The Goldberg Law Firm; Karon LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Shannon and Charles Eddy (Case No. CV 18 894910)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Christina and Marc Ellis (Case No. CV 18 894480)
W. Scott Ramsey, Esq. wsresq@aol.com

Law Office of W. Scott Ramsey, Esq.
Attorneyfor Plaintiffs Frances and Christopher Evans (Case No. CV 18 895166)
Frank E. Piscitelli, Jr., Esq. frank@feplaw.com

Eric W. Henry, Esq. eric@feplaw.com
Piscitelli Law Firm
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sara and Thomas Fink (Case No. CV 18 895250)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Lindale Garner-Hinton and Anthony Hinton (Case No. CV 18 900096)
Andrew J. Thompson, Esq. athompson@shaperoroloff.com

Neal E. Shapero, Esq. nshapero@shaperoroloff.com
Abby L. Botnick, Esq. abotnick@shaperoroloff.com
Shapero | Roloff Co., LPA
Attorneys for PlaintiffKatelynn Gurbach (Case No. CV 18 895150)
John F. Mizner, Esq. jfm@miznerfirm.com

Mizner Law Firm
Attorneyfor Plaintiffs Kelly and Wesley Haist (Case No. CV 18 898040
11
Jeffrey R. Wahl, Esq. jeffwahl@mindspring.com
Zagrans Law Firm LLC; Karon LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Vicki and Kevin Hatch (Case No. CV 18 895554)
Leif B. Christman, Esq. lbchristman@hotmail.com

Leif B Christman Law Offices
Attorneyfor Plaintiffs Kimberly and Jickie Hayes (Case No. CV 18 895408)
Kathy A. Dougherty, Esq. kdougherty@inj urymedmal .com

Lamkin, Van Eman, Trimble & Dougherty, LLC
Attorneyfor Plaintiffs Theresa and Gregory Heilmeier (Case No. CV 18 898785)
Peter A. Hessler, Esq. pahessler@wegmanlaw.com

Rachel E. Lyons, Esq. relyons@wegmanlaw.com
Peter A. Holdsworth, Esq. paholdsworth@wegmanlaw.com
Wegman, Hessler & Vanderburg
Attorneys for PlaintiffAshlee and Benjamin Hietanen (Case No. CV 18 895047)
Jeffrey C. Miller, Esq. j cmiller@bmdllc .com

Victoria L. Ferrise, Esq. vlferrise@bmdllc.com
Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. ssavett@bm.net
Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq. llederer@bm.net
Barbara A. Podell, Esq. bpodell@bm.net
Brennan Manna & Diamond, LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Tatyana Hower and Peter Constantino (Case No. CV 18 895243)
Paul V. Wolf, Esq. paulvwolf@hotmail.com

Dubyak Goldense & Wolf
Richard C. Alkire, Esq. rick@alkirelawyer.com
Dean Nieding, Esq. dean@alkirelawyer.com
Alkire & Nieding LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ashley and Mark Ison (Case No. CV 18 895186)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Stephen and Alison Jackson (Case No. CV 18 895734)
12
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Nicole M. and Ryan Johnson (Case No. CV 18 897507)
R. Eric Kennedy, Esq. ekennedy@weismanlaw.com

Daniel P. Goetz, Esq. dgoetz@weismanlaw.com
Weisman Kennedy & Berris Co., L.P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Gina and George Latcheran (Case No. CV 18 894626)

Attorneys for PlaintiffTiara Lucas (Case No. CV 18 900094)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Michael Lurz and Jennifer Kohn (Case No. CV 18 898261)
Susan E. Petersen, Esq. sep@petersenlegal.com

Todd Petersen, Esq. tp@petersenlegal.com
Petersen & Petersen
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Leah and Ashley Manino (Case No. CV 18 895720)

Taubman Law
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Vincent and Amanda Marks (Case No. CV 18 900304)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mallory and Matt McWeeny (Case No. CV 18 898646)
Dennis R. Lansdowne, Esq. dlansdowne@spanglaw.com

Samantha M. Weaver, Esq. sweaver@spanglaw.com
Spangenberg Shibley & Liber LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Rachel Mehl and Sarah Deer (Case No. 18 895524)
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)
W. Craig Bashein, Esq. cbashein@basheinlaw.com

John P. Hurst, Esq. jhurst@basheinlaw.com
Bashein & Bashein Co., LPA
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sandra Alexa and Jasen Miller (Case No. CV 18 894392)
Thomas D. Robenalt, Esq. trobenalt@robenaltlaw.com

John P. Colan, Esq. icolan@robenaltlaw.com
The Robenalt Law Firm, Inc.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jessica Paul and Brian Rockas (Case No. CV 18 895567)

Taubman Law
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Wendy Penniman and Rick Penniman (Case No. CV 18 894396)
Stephen E. Imm, Esq. stephen@finnevlawfirm.com

Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq. matt@finnevlawfirm.com
Finnev Law Firm, LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Theresa and Paul Petrick (Case No. CV 18 898262)
Jack Landskroner, Esq. i ack@lgmlegal.com

Paul Grieco, Esq. paul@lgmlegal.com
Thomas Merriman, Esq. tom@lgmlegal.com
Christian R. Patno, Esq. crp@mccarthvlebit.com
Colin R. Rav, Esq. crr@mccarthvlebit.com
Landskroner Grieco Merriman, LLC; McCarthv Lebit
Attorneys for Kate and Jeremy Plants (Case No. CV 18 894569)
Joshua R. Cohen, Esq. icohen@crklaw.com

Ellen M. Kramer emk@crklaw.com
Cohen Rosenthal & Kramer LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kelley and Becki Reynolds (Case No. CV 18 896587)
Thomas D. Robenalt, Esq. trobenalt@robenaltlaw.com

John P. Colan, Esq. icolan@robenaltlaw.com
The Robenalt Law Firm, Inc.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jane and John Roe Case No. CV 18 899481)
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)
Matthew A. Dooley, Esq. mdooley@omdplaw.com

Ryan M. Gembala, Esq. rgembala@omdplaw.com
O'Toole, McLaughlin, Dooley & Pecora Co., LPA
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ryan and Mia Rose (Case No. CV 18 894712)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Shannon and Joseph Roufail (Case No. CV 18 894948)
Brian K. Balser, Esq. brian@balserlaw.com

Brian K. Balser Co., LPA
Attorneyfor Plaintiffs Jennifer and Matthew Sears (Case No. CV 18 896263)
Michael Shroge, Esq. mshroge@pglawyer.com

Plevin & Gallucci, LPA
Attorneyfor Plaintiffs Carlee and Charles Seelbach (Case No. CV 18 894628)
Frank E. Piscitelli, Jr., Esq. frank@feplaw.com

Eric W. Henry, Esq. eric@feplaw.com
Piscitelli Law Firm
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Junelynn and Stanley Smolic (Case No. CV 18 895252)

Pamela Pantages, Esq. ppantages@nphm.com
Nurenberg Paris
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Tiffany and David Sulak (Case No. CV 18 896053)
Dennis R. Lansdowne, Esq. dlansdowne@spanglaw.com

Samantha M. Weaver, Esq. sweaver@spanglaw.com
Spangenberg Shibley & Liber LLP
Attorneys for PlaintiffDanelle Yerkey (Case No. CV 18 895789)
Hector G. Martinez, Jr., Esq. hector@martinezlawfirm.com

Leslie S. Johns, Esq. leslie@martinezlawfirm.com
The Martinez Firm
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Alyscia Zabukovec and Robert Wilce (Case No. CV 18 895594)
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)
R. Eric Kennedy, Esq. ekennedy@weismanlaw.com

Daniel P. Goetz, Esq. dgoetz@weismanlaw.com
Andrew A. Kabat, Esq. akabat@haberpolk.com
Weisman Kennedy & Berris Co., L.P.A.; Haber Polk Kabat LLP
Attorneys for PlaintiffMarla Zarlenga (Case No. CV 18 894456)
/s/Rita A. Maimbourg_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
One of the Attorneys for Defendants
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
17
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
JOHN and KRISTINE BRICKEL, ) CONSOLIDATED CASE NO.

) CV-18-894332
Plaintiffs, )
) JUDGE STUART A. FRIEDMAN
v. )
) DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED ORDER
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF ) RESTRICTING PUBLIC
CLEVELAND, et al., ) EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS BY
)
COUNSEL RELATED TO PENDING
LITIGATION
Defendants. )
)
THIS ORDER APPLIES TO ALL CASES IN THIS CONSOLIDATED ACTION
Defendants University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and any other University
Hospitals-affiliated entity named in this consolidated litigation (hereafter “Defendants”), have
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
fairness of the proceedings).
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:
JUDGE STUART A. FRIEDMAN
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.
2

UH Fertility Case Gag Order

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

UH Fertility Case Gag Order

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Motion No.

Court of Common Pleas

By: RITA A. MAIMBOURG 0013161

C onfirmation Nbr. 1439357

JOHN BRICKEL ET AL CV 18 894332

JOHN and KRISTINE BRICKEL, ) CONSOLIDATED CASE NO.

THIS MOTION APPLIES TO ALL CASES IN THIS CONSOLIDATED ACTION

Attorneys for Defendants

likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”).

engaged in an extraordinary and inflammatory media campaign against Defendants that

• March 22-27, 2018: Responding to an apology letter sent to patients, counsel

• May 11, 2018: Referring to Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on Civ.R.

• July 3, 2018: And in reaction to Defendants filing answers to the complaints,

7 WEW S News 5 Cleveland, UH Denies Liability for Failure (July 3, 2018),

II. LAW AND ARGUMENT

A. This Court can order reasonable restrictions on extrajudicial

statements about pending litigation. In In re Scaldini—a case involving considerable media

discussing or disseminating any information, statement, public comments,

proceedings.” Id. at | 13.

the integrity and fairness of the proceedings before this Court.

B. There is a substantial likelihood that Defendants will be materially

As discussed, certain counsel have engaged in a sensationalized media campaign to damage

directed towards University Hospitals is substantially likely to prejudice these proceedings by

Hospitals and that “new records” are expected to come out.9

and the parties involved.

9 WEWS NEWS 5 CLEVELAND, UH Denies Liability for Failure (July 3, 2018),

extrajudicial statements related to the pending cases in this consolidated litigation.

Attorneys for Defendants

Stuart E. Scott, Esq. sscott@spanglaw.com

Bruce D. Taubman, Esq. brucetaubman@taubmanlaw.net

Mark A. DiCello, Esq. madicello@dlcfirm.com

Justin F. Madden, Esq. jmadden@iustinmaddenlaw.com

Bruce D. Taubman, Esq. brucetaubman@taubmanlaw.net

David M. Paris, Esq. dparis@nphm.com

Stephen E. Imm, Esq. stephen@finneylawfirm.com

Leslie O. Murray, Esq. leslie@murrayandmurray.com

David M. Paris, Esq. dparis@nphm.com

Leslie O. Murray, Esq. leslie@murrayandmurray.com

Lydia M. Floyd, Esq. lfloyd@prwlegal .com

Megan J. Frantz Oldham, Esq. mfrantzoldham@lawlion.com

Eric H. Zagrans, Esq. eric@zagrans.com

Mark A. DiCello, Esq. madiceno@dlcfirm.com

Mark A. DiCello, Esq. madicello@dlcfirm.com

Stephen Imm, Esq. stephen@finnevlaw.com

James M. Kelly III, Esq. ikellev@elkandelk.com

David M. Paris, Esq. dparis@nphm.com

David M. Paris, Esq. dparis@nphm.com

W. Scott Ramsey, Esq. wsresq@aol.com

Frank E. Piscitelli, Jr., Esq. frank@feplaw.com

David M. Paris, Esq. dparis@nphm.com

Andrew J. Thompson, Esq. athompson@shaperoroloff.com

John F. Mizner, Esq. jfm@miznerfirm.com

Leif B. Christman, Esq. lbchristman@hotmail.com

Kathy A. Dougherty, Esq. kdougherty@inj urymedmal .com

Peter A. Hessler, Esq. pahessler@wegmanlaw.com

Jeffrey C. Miller, Esq. j cmiller@bmdllc .com

Paul V. Wolf, Esq. paulvwolf@hotmail.com

Stephen E. Imm, Esq. stephen@finneylawfirm.com

R. Eric Kennedy, Esq. ekennedy@weismanlaw.com

David M. Paris, Esq. dparis@nphm.com

Stephen E. Imm, Esq. stephen@finneylawfirm.com

Susan E. Petersen, Esq. sep@petersenlegal.com

Bruce D. Taubman, Esq. brucetaubman@taubmanlaw.net