Doe v. Bollaert et al

Filing 52

ORDER terminating 51 Defendants Roy and Amy Chanson's Motion to consider why they felt to need to employ ghostwriters; striking 9 Defendants Roy and Amy Chanson's Motion to Dismiss; striking 12 Defendant Eric Chanson's Motion to Dismiss; striking 16 Defendants Roy and Amy Chanson's Motion for Sanctions; denying as moot 23 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply; granting in part and denying in part 27 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, or in the alternative, Motion to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 10/22/13. (sem1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:13-cv-486
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel

v.
KEVIN C. BOLLAERT, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
On September 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike or, in the alternative, motion to
show cause. (ECF No. 27.) This filing asserts that Defendants Roy Chanson, Amy Chanson,
and Eric Chanson have filed numerous ghostwritten documents while asserting that they are
proceeding pro se. Plaintiff asks the Court to strike the documents involved and to impose
various additional sanctions.
After the Court scheduled the matter for a hearing (ECF No. 43), Roy and Amy Chanson
filed a response in which they admitted that they employed an offshore company to write the
documents that they had filed as purportedly pro se defendants. (ECF No. 46.) Eric Chanson
then filed a similar response in which he also admitted to using the same offshore company to
write his motions. (ECF No. 49.) In light of these admissions, the Court vacated the scheduled
hearing and indicated that it would proceed to address the ghostwriting issue on the paper
submissions of the parties. (ECF Nos. 48, 50.) Most recently, Roy and Amy Chanson have filed
a “motion” asking the Court to consider why they felt the need to employ ghostwriters. (ECF
No. 51.) The Court has read and considered the motion, which is more a supplemental
memorandum than a motion. That document further explains but fails to excuse the conduct

involved. The Clerk shall terminate the “motion” on the docket. (ECF No. 51.)
As this Court has previously noted, “[t]he federal courts have almost universally
condemned ghostwriting.” Evangelist v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, No. 12-15687, 2013 WL
2393142, at *3 n.5 (E.D. Mich. May 31, 2013) (collecting cases condemning the practice of
ghostwriting). See also Ostevoll v. Ostevoll, No. C-1-99-961, 2000 WL 1611123, at *9 (S.D.
Ohio Aug. 16, 2000) (“Ghostwriting of legal documents by attorneys on behalf of litigants who
state that they are proceeding pro se has been held to be inconsistent with the intent of
procedural, ethical and substantive rules of the Court.”). The Court also recognizes, however,
that some courts and bar associations have been more accepting of ghostwriting to various
degrees, especially when it involves relatively simple documents. See In re Fengling Liu, 664
F.3d 367, 370-71 (2d Cir. 2011). This Court is not accepting of the practice in light of the
circumstances this case presents.
The Court incorporates by reference the relevant portion of the analysis of Evangelist
(and the cases cited therein) and Ostevoll in finding that the conduct of Roy Chanson, Amy
Chanson, and Eric Chanson runs afoul of acceptable practices here. The incorporated analysis is
limited to those points relevant to the pro se Roy Chanson, Amy Chanson, and Eric Chanson and
thus does not include points such as the discussion in those cases regarding ghostwriting and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Moreover, in light of the absence of controlling precedent
on the issue, the Court declines to impose monetary sanctions or to pursue the ghostwriting issue
further unless subsequent conduct necessitates additional action.
As a result of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART
Plaintiff’s motion to strike or, in the alternative, motion to show cause. (ECF No. 27.) This

2

Court STRIKES the following filings: the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) filed by Roy and Amy
Chanson, the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) filed by Eric Chanson, and the motion for Rule 11
sanctions (ECF No. 16) filed by Roy and Amy Chanson. Because all briefing related to the
stricken motions is irrelevant, the Court also DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s motion for leave to
file a sur-reply. (ECF No. 23.)
The Court ORDERS that Roy Chanson, Amy Chanson, and Eric Chanson shall file their
responsive pleadings within 14 days of the filing of this Order. If Roy Chanson, Amy Chanson,
and Eric Chanson again file ghostwritten materials, the Court will impose sanctions for those
filings and may revisit the sanctions the Court has considered but declined to impose today.
Defendants shall also refrain from sending documents that they wish to file on the docket to
Chambers and shall instead follow the procedures for proper filing with the Clerk’s Office.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3