Ohio Court Refused to Block Stephanie Grisham from Repeating Allegations Against Congressional Candidate, Ex-Trump Staffer Max Miller

Miller had asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order; no, said Judge Emily Hagan (Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas).

Many courts, including in Ohio, do allow permanent injunctions against repeating material that has been found, at trial, to be libelous. But "before a court may enjoin the future publication of allegedly defamatory statements based on their content, there must first be a judicial determination that the subject statements were in fact defamatory," in the words of Bey v. Rasawehr (Ohio 2020). And courts throughout the country have confirmed that this means a finding at trial, not just at an abbreviated pretrial hearing. To quote a Kentucky Supreme Court decision, for instance,

[C]onsistent with the modern rule, we construe Section 8 [of the Kentucky Bill of Rights] as permitting an injunction against false, defamatory speech, but only upon a final judicial determination that the speech is false. "A party may obtain injunctive relief in the circuit court by permanent injunction in a final judgment." Until such determination of falsity, however, the provision is best interpreted as proscribing a preliminary restraint upon the alleged defamatory speech. We hold that neither a restraining order … nor a temporary injunction … may be used to enjoin allegedly defamatory speech.

The corresponding Ohio Bill of Rights provision is much like the Kentucky one, and more broadly this is understood as a federal constitutional principle as well.

You can read the motion for the temporary restraining order, but nothing in it deals with the constitutional question. The judge's order denying the motion didn't offer a detailed analysis, but just said (as is common for state trial court orders in such situations):

PURSUANT TO MOTION FILED. EX PARTE HEARING HELD ON 10/05/21. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IS DENIED.
HEARING SET FOR 10/13/2021 AT 01:00 PM.

Comments

[Jerry B.]

"Many courts, including in Ohio, do allow permanent injunctions against repeating material that has been found, at trial, to be libelous."

But you can't libel a Republican, especially a Trump staffer.

Please try and keep up.

[CJColucci]

Admittedly, it's very hard -- truth being a defense and all -- but it is possible.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Max Miller -- who seems the kind of guy who calls his ex-girlfriend a liar and drug addict to redirect attention when his shabby behavior becomes politically inconvenient -- probably dislikes this article, too.

He sounds like a real tough guy. The 'worked as a Lululemon clerk' part, especially.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It appears Hope Hicks has hopped off the boy toy carousel long enough to sign her name to an invitation for a Max Miller fundraiser. I would have wagered against that (the "hopped off long enough" part).

[Bob from Ohio]

Dumb suit. No Cuyahoga county judge [90% democrats] is going to rule in favor of a Trump staffer, even if the defendant is another Trump staffer.

[santamonica811]

Unbelievably dumb answer. With Trump staffers on opposite sides of a case, it's just as accurate to say, "Every single Cuyahoga judge will rule in favor of a Trump staffer, when there is another Trump staffer on the opposite side."

Bob, you DO get the "must pick at least one winner" aspect...absent some edge case where a judge can manage to make some ruling that hurts both sides. Right??? (And, obviously; that was not the case here, as the judge DID rule in favor of a Trump staffer.)

[Bob from Ohio]

I should have said "even if the defendant is another Trump staffer who has joined the RESISTANCE!" She is telling lots of un-verifible yarns in her book which mysteriously has gotten lots of national exposure.

Plus Miller is running for Congress. No Democrat judge is going to help him in any way.

Thanks for reminding me how lawsuits work, Mr. Condescending.

[santamonica811]

No True Scotsman, eh?

Bob, you've made more convincing arguments and points in the past. This one was pretty weak tea.

[David Nieporent]

Bob, you’ve made more convincing arguments and points in the past.

When?

[bevis the lumberjack]

“The judge made the decision based on politics!!!!” scream the people who decided their opinion of the matter based on politics.

[santamonica811]

Eugene,
For a "final judgment" that would allow an injunction--can it be as soon as after a judge or jury decision at trial? Or does it need to wait until after an appeal upholds the defamatory speech finding (or after the time-period for an appeal has passed, or, after some indication from the party that there will be no such appeal)?

[Gandydancer]

It's normal, is it not, for injunctions to be entered immediately, followed by a request for a stay or the judge may issue one to allow for time to process an appeal. Not seeing anything special here.

Glancing over this, Miller requested enjoining her from referring to him as her ex-boyfriend, yet a story I glanced at did so freely, iirc. It's not clear to me what is in doubt.

[apedad]

Hadn't really been following the background on this.
---------
While Grisham did not use Miller’s name, his complaint acknowledges he is the boyfriend in question.

His lawsuit says the article is “replete with libelous and defamatory false statements.”

In it, Grisham alleges that the relationship “had become violent, reaching its worst point on the day I left” and that she had shared what had happened with both the former first lady and the former president.

Melania Trump, she wrote in The Washington Post, “asked me if I had called the police and I said no, explaining that this close to the election, it wouldn’t be good to have yet another domestic abuse scandal hanging over the administration.”

While the book is vague on the specific allegations, Politico reported in July that Grisham and Miller’s relationship ended “when he pushed her against a wall and slapped her in the face in his Washington apartment after she accused him of cheating on her.”

Miller’s lawsuit told the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that Grisham is leveling the abuse allegations with actual malice, intending to harm him.

Her actions are “in retaliation for her failed relationship with Plaintiff, in retaliation against those associated with the Trump Administration for her failed stint as White House Press Secretary, in a malicious attempt to secure personal financial gain by selling more books, and/or for other reasons to be revealed at trial,” according to the complaint.