Heid et al v. Mohr et al

Filing 129

OPINION AND ORDER denying 90 Motion for Definitive Statement; denying 96 Motion to Preserve Evidence; denying 99 Motion to Preserve Evidence; denying 100 Motion to Strike Declaration of Verity; denying 101 Motion to Deem Matters Admitt ed; denying 112 Motion to Correct Clerical Errors; denying 114 Motion to Take Judicial Notice; and denying as moot 120 Motion to Stay Proceedings. Plaintiffs are ADVISED that they must each personally sign every document filed in this Court bearing their signatures and that the Court will strike any future filings applicable to this litigation unless both Plaintiffs have signed the document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 5/28/2020. (kk2)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification)

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 129 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 1 of 13 PAGEID #: 2187

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RAY SCOTT HEID, et al.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00311
Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.

GARY MOHR, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of several pending motions. For the
reasons that follow, Plaintiffs are ADVISED that they must each personally sign every document
filed in this Court bearing their signatures and that the Court will strike any future filings that are
applicable to this litigation unless both Plaintiffs have signed the document. Additionally,
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Definitive Statement (ECF No. 90) is DENIED, Plaintiffs’ Motions to
Preserve Evidence (ECF Nos. 96, 99) are DENIED, Defendants’ Motion to Strike Declaration of
Verity (ECF No. 100) is DENIED, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Matters Admitted (ECF No. 101)
is DENIED, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Correct Clerical Errors (ECF No. 112) is DENIED, Plaintiffs’
Motion to take Judicial Notice (ECF No. 114) is DENIED, and Defendants’ Motion to Stay
Proceedings (ECF No. 120) is DENIED AS MOOT.
I.

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Filing of Declaration (ECF No. 108)
On December 19, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion Requesting a Complete

Docket. (ECF No. 105.) In its Order, the Court directed Plaintiff Ray Scott Heid to file a sworn
affidavit or unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury in which he would aver that he

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 129 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 2 of 13 PAGEID #: 2188

personally signed and executed the Motion Requesting a Complete Docket. (Id.) On January 8,
2020, Plaintiff Heid filed a Declaration stating, inter alia, that “[o]n 8-22-18 [] I personally gave
one James E. Damron specific power of attorney to sign and file . . . documents in reference to
[this case] on my behalf.” (ECF No. 108.) Plaintiff Heid noted that he and Plaintiff Damron
“avoid unilateral decisions by writing to one another to confer over legal objectives and
strategies that achieve the most efficient means to those ends.” (Id.) On January 14, 2020,
Plaintiff Damron filed a notice requested the Court to take judicial notice of two attached
“Specific Power of Attorney[s]” executed between Plaintiff Heid and him whereby each one acts
as an “agent” to the other in civil proceedings. (ECF No. 111.) Plaintiff Damron noted that
“Plaintiff Heid has explicit permission to act on my behalf in our civil proceedings, as do I on his
behalf.” (Id.)
Upon request by the Court, Defendants responded to Plaintiff Heid’s Declaration,
asserting that the power of attorney “exchange” is both legally prohibited and factually deficient.
(ECF Nos. 110, 113.) Defendants rely on 28 U.S.C. § 1654 and case law interpreting the same to
assert that a party may appear personally or through counsel. (ECF No. 113 at 1–3.) Moreover,
Defendants assert that the specific documents filed by Plaintiff Damron are factually deficient
for two reasons. (Id. at 2–3.) First, the document purporting to appoint Plaintiff Damron as
Plaintiff Heid’s agent identifies specific cases but does not identify this particular case as one in
which Damron may act as an agent. (Id.; ECF No. 111 at 3.) Second, Defendants maintain that
such agency could not have been authorized for this particular case because the purported power
of attorney document was executed on August 22, 2017, which precedes the filing of this case.
(Id.)

2

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 129 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 3 of 13 PAGEID #: 2189

Plaintiffs contend that “[b]oth Plaintiffs have appeared personally and presented claims
on their own behalves” and that “neither [Plaintiff] has acted on the power so authorized” in their
power of attorney documents. (ECF No. 121 at 1–2.) But Plaintiffs maintain that their power of
attorney documents do authorize each other sign documents that the other has read and consented
to. (Id. at 2.) Attached to Plaintiffs’ Reply is a declaration signed by Plaintiff Heid indicating
that he has signed every document bearing his signature in this case. (Id. at 7–9.)
A party in federal court must proceed either through a licensed attorney or on their own
behalf. 28 U.S.C. § 1654. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an appeal was “without
effect” and the court lacked jurisdiction where the notice of appeal was prepared and filed by a
“non-attorney claiming authority to represent appellant by virtue of a grant of power of
attorney.” J.M. Huber Corp. v. Roberts, 869 F.2d 1491 (Table), 1989 WL 16866, at *1 (6th Cir.
1989). The court noted that 28 U.S.C. § 1654 “clearly makes no provision for a non-attorney’s
representation of others.” Id.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has also held that “a prisoner who initiates a civil
action challenging certain conditions at a prison facility in his individual capacity is limited to
asserting alleged violations of his own constitutional rights and, absent a request for class
certification, lacks standing to assert the constitutional right of other prisoners.” Newsom v.
Norris, 888 F.2d 371, 381 (6th Cir. 1989)
In Lester v. Michigan, the United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan dismissed an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 finding, inter alia, as follows:
A power of attorney does not authorize a non-lawyer to prosecute a case in federal
court on behalf of another person. Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874,
876 (9th Cir. 1997) (affirming dismissal of complaint with prejudice that was filed
pursuant to a general power of attorney); J.M. Huber Corp. v. Roberts, No. 886160, 1989 WL 16866, at *1 (6th Cir. Feb. 17, 1989) (notice of appeal signed by a
nonlawyer pursuant to a power of attorney ineffective to give rise to appellate
3

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 129 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 4 of 13 PAGEID #: 2190

jurisdiction); Walsh v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 1:08-cv-1132 (W.D. Mich. Oct.
12, 2009) (report and recommendation), adopted by 2009 WL 4261212 (W.D.
Mich. Nov. 24, 2009); Kapp v. Booker, No. Civ. A. 05-402-JMH, 2006 WL 385306,
at *3 (E.D. Ky. Feb.16, 2006).
Lester v. Michigan, No. 1:19-CV-354, 2019 WL 2442316, at *2 (W.D. Mich. June 12, 2019).
Here, Plaintiffs assert that their power of attorney documents are valid but also claim that
they have not used the power vested under those documents. (ECF No. 121 at 1–2.)
Specifically, Plaintiff Heid signed a sworn declaration stating that he has signed every document
bearing his signature filed in this case, despite purportedly assigning agency to Damron under a
power of attorney. (Id. at 5–9.)
A power of attorney document does not permit a non-attorney to represent a party in this
court. 28 U.S.C. § 1654; J.M. Huber Corp., 1989 WL 16866, at *1; Newsom, 888 F.2d at 381;
Lester, 2019 WL 2442316, at *2. Accordingly, Plaintiffs purported power of attorney
documents are invalid insofar as they provide for signing documents on the other’s behalf.
Plaintiffs are ADVISED that they are required to personally sign any document filed in this
Court until or unless they are represented by counsel.
II.

Motion for Definitive Statement by Plaintiffs (ECF No. 90)
On August 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Request a Definitive Statement from the

Defendants and the Court, in which they request that both Defendants and the Court “make a
definitive statement with regard to the following four (4) phrases: 1) White Separatism; 2)
White Supremacy; 3) White Nationalism; and, 4) Security Threat Group (“STG,” what
constitutes one?).” (ECF No. 90.)
Plaintiffs did not submit a memorandum in support of this Motion. They have not
supported their Motion with good cause or explained the authority under which they seek a
response from the Court or from Defendants. No provision under the Federal Rules of Civil
4

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 129 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 5 of 13 PAGEID #: 2191

Procedure authorizes a motion requesting either the Court or Defendants to submit to a party
their understanding of the definitions of various words or phrases. And this Court is not inclined
to succumb to Plaintiffs’ demands for an advisory opinion. Accordingly, the Motion (ECF No.
90) is DENIED.
III.

Motions to Preserve Evidence by Plaintiffs (ECF Nos. 96, 99)
Plaintiffs each filed a Motion to Preserve Evidence. (ECF Nos. 96, 99.) Both Motions

seek an order directing Defendants to preserve certain records “as may be maintained under
ODRC’s Record Retention Schedule.” (Id.) Each Motion goes on to list certain categories of
documents, including video footage and records pertaining to isolation placement, conduct
reports, contraband tickets, and more. (Id.) Plaintiffs maintain that preservation is “necessary to
substantiate legal claims . . . specifically actions which transpired after the filing of this lawsuit.”
(Id.) Defendants did not file a response to either Motion.
Generally, preservation orders are unnecessary because parties to civil litigation have “a
duty to preserve relevant information . . . .” John B. v. Goetz, 531 F.3d 448, 459 (6th Cir. 2008)
(citations omitted); accord Ferron v. EchoStar Satellite, LLC, 410 F. App’x. 903, 911 (6th Cir.
2010). In Goetz, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit indicated that
preservation orders should therefore “be employed in a very limited set of circumstances.” Id.
The Goetz Court also cite The Sedona Principles, which instruct that preservation orders “must
be premised on a demonstration that a real danger of evidence destruction exists, a lack of any
other available remedy, and a showing that the preservation order is an appropriate exercise of
the court’s discretion.” Id. (citing The Sedona Principles, Second Edition: Best Practices,
Recommendations & Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production at 33 (The
Sedona Conference Working Group Series, 2007) available at https://thesedonaconference.
org/download-pub/81).
5

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 129 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 6 of 13 PAGEID #: 2192

Here, Plaintiffs have not established—or even alleged—that Defendants have not abided
by their duty to preserve evidence in this case. The law already requires Defendants to preserve
evidence relevant to this case, without the need for the Court’s intervention. Therefore,
Plaintiffs’ Motions to Preserve Evidence (ECF Nos. 96, 99) are DENIED.
IV.

Motion to Strike Declaration of Verity by Defendants (ECF No. 100)
On December 2, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Declaration of Verity of Ryan Hoffman

who, like Plaintiffs, is a “Christian Separatist.” (ECF No. 97.) On December 12, 2019,
Defendants moved to strike the declaration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), asserting that it is
improper and irrelevant. (ECF No. 100.) Defendants note that the declaration is neither signed
nor dated, which invalidates it under 28 U.S.C. § 1746. (Id. at 2.) Defendants further note that
the declaration was note filed in relation to any pleading and is irrelevant to the issues in the
pending litigation. (Id.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that “[t]he court may strike from a
pleading . . . any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Defendants
acknowledge that the Rule only applies to pleadings but cite a non-binding case where a court
held that the Rule can occasionally be applied to other filings. (ECF No. 100 at 2, citing Pigford
v. Veneman, 215 F.R.D. 2, 4 n.1 (D.D.C. 2203).)
This Court and others within the Circuit have previously held that Rule 12(f) is not a
mechanism to strike affidavits or declarations. See Hughes v. Lavender, No. 2:10-CV-674, 2011
WL 2945843, at *4 (S.D. Ohio July 20, 2011) (“Notwithstanding the fact that some courts have
used Rule 12(f) to strike affidavits or portions thereof, there is no basis in the rule for doing
so.”); Weaver v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Correction, No. 1:17 CV 123, 2018 WL 4701599, at *2
(N.D. Ohio Sept. 24, 2018) (“It is clear that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide
for a motion to strike documents or portions of documents other than pleadings.”) (internal
6

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 129 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 7 of 13 PAGEID #: 2193

quotation omitted); Holder v. Powell, No. 1:09-CV-625, 2011 WL 3567501, at *4 (S.D. Ohio
July 1, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, No. C-1-09-625, 2011 WL 3566003 (S.D.
Ohio Aug. 12, 2011) (“Defendant has not cited any authority that allows the Court to strike an
improper declaration from the record, and the Court is not aware of any such authority.”);
Portwood v. Montgomery Cty., Tenn., No. 3:13-CV-0186, 2014 WL 6871516, at *6 (M.D. Tenn.
Dec. 5, 2014) (“Instead of striking evidence from the record, courts should simply disregard
inadmissible evidence.”)
Here, the Court agrees with Defendants that the declaration does not appear to be filed in
support of any pleading or motion. However, striking the declaration under Rule 12(f) would be
improper. The Court will instead disregard the filing at this time and will only consider the
evidentiary value of the declaration if it is used in support of a pleading or motion by Plaintiffs.
Accordingly, the Motion to Strike (ECF No. 100) is DENIED.
V.

Motion to Deem Matters Admitted by Plaintiffs (ECF No. 101)
This matter is also before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem

Matters Admitted (ECF No. 101) and Defendants’ Response in Opposition (ECF No. 109).
Plaintiffs seek an order deeming certain requests for admission directed to Defendant D.J. Norris
admitted because Plaintiffs assert Defendant Norris provided “inadequate responses.” (ECF No.
101.) Defendants oppose the Motion, contending that the requests at issue are improper and that
Defendant Norris responded to the questions in good faith, objecting where appropriate. (ECF
No. 109 at 2.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a) provides in relevant part as follows:
(1) Scope. A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes
of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1)
relating to:
(A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and
7

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 129 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 8 of 13 PAGEID #: 2194

(B) the genuineness of any described documents.
(4) Answer. If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in
detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly
respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an
answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and
qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information
as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable
inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it
to admit or deny.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1), (4).
Plaintiffs contend that in response to nine specific discovery requests at issue, Defendant
Norris answered that “he lacked sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the request
but did not state that a reasonable inquiry was made and that the information Defendant knows or
can readily obtain was insufficient to enable him to admit or deny the request.” (ECF No. 101 at
2.) Plaintiffs further assert that “[u]nless the responding party states that it made a reasonable
effort to ascertain the requested matters, the refusal to answer is not valid.” (Id, citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(g)(1), 36(a)(4).)
Here, the nine requests for admission at issue ask Defendant Norris specific questions
about the teachings of three different religious groups, whether certain aspects of those religions
can be “seen as offensive,” what protections those religious groups enjoy under the law, and the
actions of other inmates. (ECF No. 101 at 7–12.) Defendant Norris objected to each of these
requests on several bases and proceeded to deny each request with a short and plain statement.
(Id.) The Court finds that these full and specific denials, despite the accompanying objections,
are sufficient answers in compliance with Rule 36. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4) (“If a matter is
not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party
cannot truthfully admit or deny it.”)

8

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 129 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 9 of 13 PAGEID #: 2195

Next, Plaintiffs claim that five of the requests were not answered in good faith because
Defendant Norris denied the requests based on institutional security and the safety of current and
previous inmates. (ECF No. 101 at 2–3.) Each of these requests (Nos. 3, 5, 6, 16, 21) request
information related to whether or not certain groups have been identified as security threats at the
prison. (Id. at 7–12.) Defendant Norris objected to these requests because they seek privileged
information that could threaten institutional security. (Id.) Defendant Norris also objected based
on relevance and that some of the requests are compound and assume facts not in evidence. (Id.)
Defendant Norris denied each request, noting that he “cannot respond to matters regarding STG
groups because it is privileged and may threaten the safety of current or previous inmates” as
well as “institutional security.” (Id.) The Court finds that as to these requests, Defendant Norris’
objections and responses are in compliance with Rule 36. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4) (“If a
matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering
party cannot truthfully admit or deny it.”).
VI.

Motion to Correct Clerical Errors by Plaintiffs (ECF No. 112)
On January 22, 2020, Plaintiff Damron filed a Motion to Correct Clerical Errors. (ECF

No. 112.)1 Plaintiff first requests that the “Legal Notice That Christian Separatism Is A
Legitimate Religion” be “put on the Court record for reference purposes and fact.” (Id.)
Plaintiff asserts that this Notice was filed on or about March 19, 2019, and he has attached it as
“P1.” However, no attachments to this Motion bear the title of said Notice and the Court is not
aware of any Notice being filed on or about March 19, 2019.

1

Notably, Plaintiff Heid did not sign this document. Plaintiffs are ADVISED that they both
must personally sign each and every document related to this litigation if they intend for it to be
effective as to each of them. In the future, the Court will strike any Motion, Notice or other
paper that Plaintiffs intend to be applicable to both of them if only one has signed. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11(a) (“Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed . . . by a party
personally if the party is unrepresented.)
9

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 129 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 10 of 13 PAGEID #: 2196

Plaintiff’s second request is for the “Memorandum[s] In Support of Motion to Deem
Admissions Admitted” as to Defendants Gillum and Norris to be filed separately on the docket
so they “can be addressed on their own standing before the Court.” (Id.) Again, Plaintiff asserts
that said memoranda are attached to his Motion as “P2.” The attached documents, however, are
labeled “Personal A/C Withdrawal Check Out-Slip,” not the memoranda themselves. (Id.) The
Court presumes that Plaintiff is referring to the Motion to Deem Matters Admitted, which was
filed on December 18, 2019. (ECF No. 101.) That Motion relates to requests for admission
directed to Defendant D.J. Norris. (Id.) The filing does not reference discovery requests
directed to Defendant Matt Gillum, and the Court has not received any motion related to any
such discovery requests.
As explained above, because the Court is unable to discern the clerical errors Plaintiff
Damron wishes to have corrected, the Motion (ECF No. 112) is DENIED.
VII.

Motion to Take Judicial Notice by Plaintiffs (ECF No. 114)

On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff Damron filed a Motion to Take Judicial Notice. (ECF
No. 114.)2 The Notice includes a 43-page “history of the swastika from Wikipedia” and requests
that the Court take notice that “the swastika is a symbol with many styles and meanings and can
be found in many cultures.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that although other ethnicities and cultures
have used the swastika for different purposes, “that should not be confused by the Court with
how Plaintiffs and Christian Separatism distinctively use and interpret it.” (Id.) Plaintiff
Damron represents that he “personally hold[s] the sincere belief that Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on
the Cross of Calvary [is] symbolized by the swastika.” (Id.)

2

Again, Plaintiff Heid did not sign this document.
10

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 129 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 11 of 13 PAGEID #: 2197

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a district court may take judicial notice of a fact
“that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial
court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources
whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The Advisory
Committee notes to Rule 201 state that “[a] high degree of indisputability is an essential
prerequisite for a court to take judicial notice of a particular fact.” Koenig v. USA Hockey, Inc.,
No. 2:09-CV-1097, 2010 WL 4783042, at *3 (S.D. Ohio June 14, 2010) (internal citation
omitted).
Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the entry for “swastika” on
Wikipedia.com as of January 30, 2020. (ECF No. 114.) The United States Court of Federal
Claims has considered the reliability and accuracy of information contained on Wikipedia and
described it as “a website that allows virtually anyone to upload an article into what is essentially
a free, online encyclopedia.” Campbell ex rel. Campbell v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 69
Fed. Cl. 775, 781 (2006). The court continued its analysis of Wikipedia as follows:
A review of the Wikipedia website reveals a pervasive and, for our purposes,
disturbing series of disclaimers, among them, that: (i) any given Wikipedia article
may be, at any given moment, in a bad state: for example it could be in the middle
of a large edit or it could have been recently vandalized; (ii) Wikipedia articles are
also subject to remarkable oversights and omissions; (iii) Wikipedia articles (or
series of related articles) are liable to be incomplete in ways that would be less usual
in a more tightly controlled reference work; (iv) another problem with a lot of
content on Wikipedia is that many contributors do not cite their sources, something
that makes it hard for the reader to judge the credibility of what is written; and (v)
many articles commence their lives as partisan drafts and may be caught up in a
heavily unbalanced viewpoint.
Id. (internal citations omitted).
Courts have repeatedly denied requests for judicial notice of information found on thirdparty websites, such as Wikipedia. Koenig, 2010 WL 4783042, at *2 (“Courts have also

11

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 129 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 12 of 13 PAGEID #: 2198

expressed doubt about using Internet sources such as Wikipedia as authority for any proposition
because of the opportunity for insertion of unreliable information into that website’s content.”);
Altman v. HO Sports Co., Inc., 821 F. Supp. 2d 1178, 1181 n.2 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (sustaining
objections on the basis that Wikipedia is not an adequate source for purposes of judicial notice);
BP Products North America, Inc. v. United States, 2010 WL 2180351, at *3 n.10 (Ct. of Int’l
Trade June 1, 2010) (“Based on the ability of any user to alter Wikipedia, the court is skeptical of
it as a consistently reliable source of information. At this time, therefore, the court does not
accept Wikipedia for the purpose of judicial notice”); Bitton v. Gencor Nutrientes, Inc., 654 F.
App’x 358, 361 (9th Cir. 2016) (finding that statements on a Wikipedia page are not proper
subjects for judicial notice); Galvani v. Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Ins. Co., No. C 11-3848
PJH, 2012 WL 2568220, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2012), aff’d, 544 F. App’x 791 (9th Cir. 2013)
(denying a request for the court to take judicial notice as to a Wikipedia article); Stein v. Bennett,
No. 2:12-CV-42-WKW, 2013 WL 12080962, at *6 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 5, 2013), aff’d sub nom.
Stein v. Alabama Sec’y of State, 774 F.3d 689 (11th Cir. 2014) (“Wikipedia is not a source that
warrants judicial notice.”).
The Wikipedia entry for “swastika” is an inappropriate source for judicial notice under
Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b). The entry is subject to reasonable dispute and its accuracy can
reasonably be questioned, as described above. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Take Judicial
Notice (ECF No. 114) is DENIED.
VIII. Motion to Stay Proceedings by Defendants (ECF No. 120)
Finally, this matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Stay
Proceedings. (ECF No. 120.) Defendants seek a stay of discovery until Plaintiffs’ appeal to the
Sixth Circuit is resolved and until this Court issues a scheduling order determining the time limit
for discovery. (Id.) Plaintiffs oppose the Motion. (ECF Nos. 123, 126.)
12

Case: 2:18-cv-00311-ALM-EPD Doc #: 129 Filed: 05/28/20 Page: 13 of 13 PAGEID #: 2199

On March 31, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed this
Court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary
injunction and Plaintiffs’ motion for recusal of the district court judge. (ECF No. 127.)
Accordingly, to the extent that Defendants seek to stay discovery in this case pending an
appellate decision, the Motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
The Court will separately issue a Scheduling Order. Given the apparent voluminous
amounts of discovery that has taken place in this case, particularly issued by Plaintiffs, the
parties should anticipate an abbreviated period of discovery.
IX.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs are ADVISED that they must each personally sign

every document filed in this Court bearing their signatures and that the Court will strike any
future filings that are applicable to this litigation unless both Plaintiffs have signed the document.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Definitive Statement (ECF No. 90) is DENIED, Plaintiffs’ Motions to
Preserve Evidence (ECF Nos. 96, 99) are DENIED, Defendants’ Motion to Strike Declaration of
Verity (ECF No. 100) is DENIED, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Matters Admitted (ECF No. 101)
is DENIED, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Correct Clerical Errors (ECF No. 112) is DENIED, Plaintiffs’
Motion to take Judicial Notice (ECF No. 114) is DENIED, and Defendants’ Motion to Stay
Proceedings (ECF No. 120) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: May 28, 2020

/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13