King Lincoln Bronzeville Neighborhood Association et al v. J. Kenneth Blackwell et al

Filing 94

NOTICE of Response to Plaintiffs' Attempt to Subpoena Karl Rove by Defendant Jennifer L. Brunner (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Arnebeck Email Dated October 25, 2010, # 2 Exhibit Arnebeck Email Dated October 31, 2010) (Coglianese, Richard) Modified on 11/10/2010 to correct text (kk2)

In The United States District Court
For The Southern District Of Ohio, Eastern Division
King Lincoln Bronzeville
Neighborhood Association, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No. 2:06-cv-745

Jennifer Brunner, et al.,
Defendants.

Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge Kemp

Defendants’ Response To The
Plaintiffs’ Attempt to Subpoena Karl Rove
During a telephone conference on November 2, 2010, this Court asked counsel for
the parties to file a position statement on whether or not they believe that the deposition
of Mr. Karl Rove, currently scheduled for November 29, 2010, is allowable under the
Court’s stay order.
The Plaintiffs initially filed this litigation against then-Secretary Blackwell in his
individual and official capacities. Also named, but not yet served, are the Ohio
Republican Party, Robert Bennett, in his individual and official capacities as the chair of
the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, Matthew Damschroder in his individual and
official capacities with the Franklin County Board of Elections, an individual in
employee of a voting machine manufacturer, and a former director of the Clermont
County Board of Elections. The amended complaint alleged that these individual
defendants conspired with 100 unknown John Doe defendants to steal the 2004
presidential election in Ohio. Namely, the Plaintiffs alleged that these defendants
conspired to allow fraudulent votes to be cast in 2004 for President Bush, that they

allowed the double counting of absentee ballots, that they suppressed or spoiled votes in
areas that tended to vote for Senator Kerry, they inflated vote tabulations from areas that
voted for President Bush, they failed to properly follow Ohio’s recount laws, and they
violated other provisions of state and federal law.
The Court originally issued a stay of this case, including all discovery. That stay
was lifted “for the sole purpose of permitting the plaintiffs to take the deposition of
Michael Connell and any other witnesses whose testimony, in the judgment of these
parties, may be warranted based upon the deposition of Michael Connell.” (R. 65 Agreed
Order). On November 3, 2008, the Plaintiffs took the deposition of Mr. Connell. That
deposition focused on work that Mr. Connell did for the Secretary of State’s office as an
outside vendor working on the Secretary’s computer system and website. The Plaintiffs
were attempting to obtain information about whether there were security problems with
the Secretary’s website that would allow vote tallies to be switched between candidates.
Nothing further transpired in this case until the Plaintiffs purported to serve a
subpoena on Karl Rove on October 22, 2010. After receiving a copy of the subpoena,
counsel for the State Defendants sent an email to counsel for the Plaintiffs asking why
they believed that this deposition was necessary. Mr. Arnebeck responded by saying that
“[t]he gist of the King Lincoln amended complaint was that Blackwell and his cohorts
were involved in an ongoing conspiracy to suppress the votes of African-Americans and
young voters and to manipulate vote counts in a variety of ways that would be prejudicial
to their interests. Creating an avalanche of billionaire/global corporate funding in favor
of candidates in favor freedom (sic) of special interests from taxation and regulation is
just another form of fraudulent manipulation of the election process.” (Exh. A, Arnebeck

email dated October 25, 2010). Arnebeck also informed counsel for the Defendants that
he wanted to serve additional subpoenas under the King Lincoln case on the Chamber of
Commerce because the “public will be irreparably harmed if it is not informed before
Tuesday’s election as to whom is funding these ads that are in a sufficient volume to
determine the election. Indeed they have determined the election according to the
Dispatch’s ever reliable written poll. Inasmuch as this seeks to address fraud in the
present election, I have left a telephone message to this effect with Jennifer.” (Exh. B,
Arnebeck email dated October 31, 2010).
The deposition of Mr. Connell had did not touch upon any campaign finance
issues. Rather, it concerned the computer system and webpage that Mr. Connell set up
for then-Secretary Blackwell. Similarly, the King Lincoln case itself does not involve
campaign finance issues. Although this rationale may be outside the bounds of the
Court’s order on whether discovery can be had in this case, the Secretary of State has no
objection to whether the deposition of Mr. Rove should be allowed to go forward.
Respectfully submitted,
RICAHRD CORDRAY
Attorney General

/s Richard N. Coglianese
Richard N. Coglianese (0066830)
Assistant Attorney General
Constitutional Offices
30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
614-466-2872
614-728-7592 (Fax)
[e-mail]

Certificate of Service
This is to certify a copy of the foregoing was served upon all counsel of record by
means of the Court’s electronic filing system on this 9th day of November, 2010.

/s Richard N. Coglianese