COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OH


ROBERT A. NEINAST
Plaintiff,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
FAIRFIELD COUNTY DISTRICT
LIBRARY,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
 


Case No. 09 CV 0657

Judge Chris Martin


MOTION FOR ORDER REGARDING THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING OF
FEBRUARY 16, 2011

Now comes Plaintiff Robert A. Neinast, who respectfully moves that the Court issue an order clarifying the scope of and procedure for the evidentiary hearing in the above captioned case scheduled for February 16, 2011. A memorandum in support is attached.


  Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Robert A. Neinast, Plaintiff
8617 Ashford Lane
Pickerington, OH 43147
Phone: (614) 759-1601
Email: neinast@att.net


MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

Plaintiff, pursuing this case pro se, is well-aware of his limitations in matters that others take for granted. Therefore, in order to have clarified some issues that he is unsure about, to help ensure that the evidentiary hearing is productive for both sides, to assist him in properly preparing for the hearing, and to minimize wasting the Court's time through his ignorance, Plaintiff moves that this Court issue an order clarifying the scope of and procedure for the hearing.

Via the remand from the Fifth District Court of Appeals and this court's Entry of November 30, 2011, the reason for the evidentiary hearing is

to determine if in fact appellee [the Library] can establish reasons for the footwear rule that applies specifically to appellee.

The Court of Appeals was more specific when they further noted that the authority of the Library is not unfettered, but required an examination

into the relationship of the shoes requirement to health and public safety.

Opinion, at ¶66.

Nonetheless, Plaintiff has remaining questions regarding how this evidentiary hearing will be conducted. If this were a full trial, there would have been a Scheduling Order laying out the pretrial conference and the details specified by Loc.R. 2.4, including timelines for the exchange of witness and exhibit lists. None of those are included in this Court's Notice of Evidentiary Hearing. Therefore, Plaintiff asks for clarification from the Court as to its expectations with respect to the following issues:

  • What is the intended scope of the evidentiary hearing? Is it intended that the evidence and witnesses be limited to those already heard from in the affidavits/interrogatories for this case, or is it intended to be more extensive?

  • Will the Plaintiff or the Defendant go first? Normally, of course, the Plaintiff would go first, but since the reason for the hearing, supra, places the burden on the Defendant, will they go first instead?

  • As already noted, if this were a trial, Loc.R. 2.4 would have dictated the exchange of trial information. Is it expected that this information be exchanged prior to the hearing? What timetable applies? A scheduling order for the evidentiary hearing would be useful.

  • The hearing is scheduled for 3:00pm on a Wednesday. Since this Court normally adjourns at 4:00pm, one hour does not seem to be enough time for the hearing on that day. Furthermore, since counsel for the Defendants has stated that he is generally unavailable on Thursdays, does this mean that the hearing will be adjourned until Friday? If Plaintiff has witnesses coming from out-of-town (or out-of-state), staying that long would put a burden on them. How is this usually handled?

  • When should subpoenas be issued to ensure the attendance of witnesses?

Plaintiff thanks the Court for its indulgence.



  Respectfully submitted,
_______________________
Robert A. Neinast
Plaintiff, pro se
8617 Ashford Lane
Pickerington, OH 43147
Phone: (614) 759-1601
Email: neinast@att.net



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion was served, by hand delivery to his office, upon Mr. Jason M. Dolin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Attorney for Defendants, 239 West Main Street — Suite 101, Lancaster, OH, 43130, this 20th day of January, 2011.

 
_______________________
Robert A. Neinast