From yesterday's opinion in Cozad v. Ohio Elections Commission, decided by the Ohio Court of Appeals:
In September 2019, John M. Stafford, an elector and resident of the Bellbrook-Sugarcreek School District, filed with the commission a complaint against Citizens for Bellbrook-Sugarcreek Schools—a political action committee formed to promote the passage of a tax levy on the May 2019 primary and special elections ballot—its treasurer, Andy Lowrey, and its campaign chair, [Douglas] Cozad, who is also the Superintendent of the Bellbrook-Sugarcreek School District. Stafford alleged that the political action committee had violated Ohio election laws by failing to disclose in its campaign finance filings the value of in-kind contributions it had received from the school district…. [F]ollowing its preliminary review of Stafford's complaint, the commission concluded that there was probable cause, and scheduled the matter for a hearing.
In December 2019, several months before the scheduled hearing on Stafford's complaint, Cozad filed with the commission a motion for a protective order, pursuant to Civ.R. 26(C). Ostensibly to protect himself and the other respondents from annoyance, embarrassment, and oppression, Cozad requested an order broadly prohibiting Stafford from:
(1.) Issuing any public comments about this action in any form whatsoever, including, but not limited to social media (e.g. Facebook);
(2.) Disseminating, disclosing or commenting to the public any information, documents or other things gleaned through discovery or from subpoenas issued to third-parties;
(3.) Disseminating, disclosing or commenting to the public any information, documents or testimony from any depositions; and
(4.) Directly or indirectly attempting to influence the Ohio Elections Commission or public opinion regarding this action through any public comments, including, but not limited to, the use of social media (e.g. Facebook).
