Wiehoff et al v. Bendet et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JENNIFER WIEHOFF, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:23-cv-2159
v. 	Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
SIMCHA B. BENDET, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Simcha B. Bendet, Adroit Children, LLC,
Adroit Children OH, LLC, and The Perfect Child MSO, LLC’s Motion to Strike Notice of
Supplemental Evidence and Affidavit of Cheyenne MacLean (ECF No. 53) and Plaintiffs Jennifer
Wiehoff, Kyle Wiehoff, and Academic and Behavioral Learning Enrichment, Ltd.’s Motions for
Extension of Discovery Deadline and for Court Approval of Filing of Physical Evidence (ECF No.
56). For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ Motion to Strike Notice of Supplemental Evidence
and Affidavit of Cheyenne MacLean is DENIED (ECF No. 53) and Plaintiffs’ Motions for
Extension of Discovery Deadline and Court Approval of Filing of Physical Evidence are
GRANTED (ECF No. 56).
Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit alleging thirteen claims against Defendants that arise out of
a failed sale of a business. (ECF No. 2.) Currently in dispute is the authentication of a set of Zoom
meeting recordings that Plaintiffs assert support their slander, slander per se, and false light claims.
(ECF No. 56, PageID 967.) Plaintiffs did not attend the Zoom meeting so they cannot authenticate
the recordings. (See id.) Instead, the individual who provided the recordings was going to
authenticate them. (Id. PageID 971). But Plaintiffs discovered in June 2025 that the witness did
not attend the meeting and therefore could not authenticate the recordings. (Id.) Plaintiffs then
contacted four other individuals and ultimately found Chayenne MacLean, who was present at the
Case: 2:23-cv-02159-EAS-EPD Doc #: 60 Filed: 11/10/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
meeting and can authenticate the recordings, in July 2025. (Id.)
The discovery deadline in this case was March 31, 2025. (ECF No. 25.) Four months after
the deadline, on July 31, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Defendants’ counsel via email that
they intended to take Ms. MacLean’s deposition. (ECF No. 56, PageID 1005.) Defendants opposed
the deposition because the discovery deadline had passed and moved to quash the deposition
subpoena. (ECF No. 47.) Plaintiffs canceled the deposition to allow Ms. MacLean to obtain
counsel and offered her the option of an affidavit instead of a deposition. (ECF No. 56, PageID
974.)
On August 25, 2025, Plaintiffs filed Ms. MacLean’s affidavit (ECF No. 51) and a Notice
of Supplemental Evidence (ECF No. 52). Defendants moved to strike both. (ECF No. 53.) A few
weeks later, Plaintiffs moved to extend the discovery deadline and for leave to file the recordings
with the Court. (ECF No. 56.) Defendants responded opposing both motions (ECF No. 58) and
Plaintiffs filed a reply (ECF No. 59).
Plaintiffs want to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of (1) submitting the recordings
to the Court and (2) allowing Defendants to depose Ms. MacLean, if they choose to do so. (ECF
No. 56.) Defendants contend in response that Plaintiffs did not act diligently to find a witness
before the discovery deadline and that Plaintiffs should have moved to extend discovery earlier.
(ECF No. 58, PageID 1043–44.)
Whether to allow additional discovery after the discovery deadline has passed lies in the
trial court’s discretion. See Dowling v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 593 F.3d 472, 478 (6th Cir. 2010).
A scheduling order may be modified for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)(4). “The overarching
inquiry” in the good-cause analysis is “whether the moving party was diligent in pursuing
discovery.” Dowling, 593 F.3d at 478; Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 625 (6th Cir. 2002).
Prejudice to the opposing party is also an important consideration. Inge, 281 F.3d at 625.
Case: 2:23-cv-02159-EAS-EPD Doc #: 60 Filed: 11/10/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
The Court finds good cause to reopen discovery for the limited purpose requested by
Plaintiffs. The recordings are key evidence related to Plaintiffs’ slander, slander per se, and false
light claims. Both parties have acknowledged and addressed the recordings in their briefs on
summary judgment. (See ECF Nos 30-1, 35, 38.) Additionally, the Plaintiffs were diligent in their
attempt to find someone to authenticate the recordings. After the original witness fell through, they
quickly contacted multiple people to find someone that attended the meeting. Lastly, prejudice to
Defendants is minimal because they know the recordings exist, have addressed the recordings in
their briefs on summary judgment to the Court, and will have an opportunity to depose Ms.
MacLean if they choose to do so.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motions for Extension of Discovery Deadline
and Court Approval of Filing of Physical Evidence (ECF No. 56). Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to
provide a flash drive containing the recordings to the Court’s Office of the Clerk within five days
of the date of this Order. The Court ORDERS that discovery be reopened for thirty days from the
date of this Order to allow Defendants to depose Ms. MacLean.
For the same reasons, the Court will consider Ms. MacLean’s Affidavit (ECF No. 51) and
Notice to the Court of Supplemental Evidence (ECF No. 52). Accordingly, the Court DENIES
Defendants’ Motion to Strike Notice of Supplemental Evidence and Affidavit of Cheyenne
MacLean (ECF No. 53).
This case remains open.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11/10/2025 	s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE 	EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 2:23-cv-02159-EAS-EPD Doc #: 60 Filed: 11/10/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>