Seiverth v. City of Perrysburg, Ohio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Jonathan Seiverth, 	Case No. 3:24-cv-1582
Plaintiff,
v. 	ORDER
City of Perrysburg, Ohio,
Defendant.
After reviewing the parties’ joint letter regarding outstanding discovery disputes, (see Doc.
No. 22), I order:
1.) By April 17, 2026, the parties shall conduct the depositions on which they agree – those of
Human Resources Manager Kelly Chalfant, former Mayor Tom Mackin, and Police Chief
Chris Sargent.
2.) After those depositions have been conducted, each party shall reassess their positions as to
the disputed depositions. With this, I remind Plaintiff that:
a. 	“On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery
otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that . . . the
discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from
some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive . . .
or the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) (emphasis added); and
Case: 3:24-cv-01582-JJH Doc #: 23 Filed: 02/25/26 1 of 2. PageID #: <pageID>

2
b. 	“A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take
reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to
the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce
this duty and impose an appropriate sanction--which may include lost earnings and
reasonable attorney’s fees--on a party or attorney who fails to comply.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 45(d)(1) (emphasis added).
3.) Within fourteen days of the date of the final mutually-agreeable deposition, counsel shall
meet and confer about their updated positions with respect to those disputed depositions.
Specifically, I urge counsel to discuss whether the parties can agree to:
a. 	A stipulation as to any fact or facts which may obviate the need for the testimony
sought through any remaining disputed deposition or depositions;
b. 	An alternate procedure (e.g., a deposition by written questions) for any remaining
disputed deposition;
c. 	A limited scope for any remaining disputed deposition; or
d. 	All of the above.
4.) Should a dispute remain after these discussions, counsel shall email my chambers an
updated joint discovery dispute letter no later than May 8, 2026. If no dispute remains,
counsel shall file a joint status report by May 8, 2026, proposing next steps in the litigation
and mutually-agreeable deadlines.
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge
Case: 3:24-cv-01582-JJH Doc #: 23 Filed: 02/25/26 2 of 2. PageID #: <pageID>