Chandra Law Logo

Congressman Max Miller’s re-election boasts torpedo his own defamation lawsuit, as he pursues unlawful, abusive discovery “fishing expedition”

Monday, June 29, 2026

Congressman Max Miller’s re-election boasts torpedo his own defamation lawsuit, as he pursues unlawful, abusive discovery “fishing expedition”
Congressman Max Miller (R-OH)

Cleveland, OH – Today, Emily Moreno's counsel filed two legal filings in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas against her ex-husband, Congressman Max Miller. The dual filings include a third supplement to her anti-SLAPP dismissal motion showing that Miller's own public statements eliminate his ability to claim legal damages, along with an opposition brief dismantling his attempt to launch an intrusive, rule-flouting “fishing expedition” under the guise of limited discovery. "SLAPP" refers to Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, which Ms. Moreno asserts Congressman Miller's suit against her is.

Miller’s media boasts undercut core elements of his defamation and false-light claims

In recent media interviews, Congressman Miller confidently proclaimed that the domestic-abuse allegations against him will have no impact on his political standing, directly contradicting the core claims of his own lawsuit. Speaking to the Akron Beacon Journal, Miller boasted, “We are going to win this election—by a lot,” and labeled questions about whether the case would harm his career “a little insulting”.

In a television interview with Spectrum News, Miller bragged that the abuse allegations are “not going to hurt me enough for me to lose an election.”

According to the third supplement to a motion to dismiss the suit filed by Moreno’s counsel, these public statements serve as explicit admissions that Miller has suffered and will suffer no actual or pecuniary damages to his career, reputation, or re-election efforts. Because proof of injury and quantifiable harm are prerequisites to sustain defamation and false-light claims under Ohio law, Miller’s own words effectively invalidate his lawsuit.

Ms. Moreno had to file two previous supplements as Miller continued a troubling course of conduct and made other admissions to media.

Moreno opposes abusive, overly intrusive discovery request

Moreno also filed a brief opposing Miller's supposedly "emergency" motion for "limited discovery," arguing that his sweeping request is “exactly the kind of abusive behavior that Ohio's legislature sought to curb” when it enacted the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA).

Ohio’s anti-SLAPP law mandates a complete stay on all discovery to shield citizens from expensive, punitive litigation designed to chill free speech on matters of public concern. Limited discovery is permitted only under highly narrow circumstances where a party can prove specific information is absolutely necessary to establish a prima facie (“on its face”) case and cannot be obtained by any other means.

The defense brief highlights that Miller’s proposed discovery plan is extraordinarily broad and burdensome, demanding nine hours of deposition time, extensive document production, and subpoenas aimed at third parties—including a sitting United States Senator and a foreign news corporation.

Moreno’s legal team detailed multiple critical reasons why the court should reject Miller’s so-called “emergency” discovery motion and maintain the total stay on discovery:

  • Cannot prove a negative: Ms. Moreno has twice sworn under oath—including in domestic-relations court—that she never spoke to The Daily Mail or directed anyone else to do so. The brief notes that “no amount of discovery will disprove a negative.”

  • Seeking information irrelevant to his claims: Miller seeks to learn who disclosed injury photos of Ms. Moreno and a handwritten note from Miller apologizing, but in his complaint he didn’t—and couldn’t under Ohio law—allege such items were defamatory, and so the information he seeks goes outside of what limited discovery under UPEPA might allow.

  • Invades attorney-client privilege: Miller improperly seeks discovery on confidential conversations between Ms. Moreno and her counsel, Andrew Zashin, despite well-established law protecting an attorney's role in handling public relations and defending a client's reputation in a litigation context.

  • Flouts reporter-shield laws: Miller's apparent primary objective is to force The Daily Mail to unmask its anonymous sources, which directly violates Ohio’s reporter-shield statute (R.C. 2739.12).

  • Statute of limitations: Miller seeks to investigate private conversations dating back to June 2024, which fall entirely outside Ohio’s strict one-year statute of limitations for speech-based claims.

Summary from the briefs

In the filings submitted to Judge Joy Kennedy, Moreno’s legal team emphasizes that the congressman “seems unable to stop talking in a way that supports Ms. Moreno's motion.” Rather than vindicating a legitimate legal wrong, Miller is trying to execute a “fishing expedition at Ms. Moreno’s expense” while effectively admitting he has no evidence she provided any information to the news outlet. Invoking UPEPA's prime directive to jettison meritless, free-speech-retaliatory lawsuits quickly, Moreno's counsel argues the court must reject Miller’s futile discovery efforts and proceed with the scheduled July 23, 2026 dismissal hearing.

Ms. Moreno is represented in this matter by Subodh Chandra and Emily Bohatch. The case is captioned Miller v. Moreno, et al., Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas General Division Case No. 26-138810, and is before Judge Joy Kennedy. The two filings may be found here and here.

About The Chandra Law Firm LLC

The Chandra Law Firm LLC is a boutique trial firm with offices in California and Ohio, focusing on high-stakes whistleblower protection, employment retaliation, civil rights, and First Amendment litigation. For more information, visit www.ChandraLaw.com.

At Chandra Law, your case is our cause®.

Related Practice Areas
Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFirst Amendment RetaliationFree Speech for California Public Employees: Where the Line Is DrawnCalifornia’s Anti-SLAPP StatuteOhio’s Anti-SLAPP Statute
Tags
first-amendment-retaliationcongressman-max-millerupepaemily-morenouniform-public-expression-protection-act-(upepa)anti-slappfree-speechmax-miller

Making the right choice in legal representation can make the difference in whether you achieve a result that protects your legal rights and best interests.

Tell Us About Your Case