Chandra Law Logo

“THWARTED”: Court denies Congressman Max Miller’s “emergency” discovery motion, advancing path to anti-SLAPP dismissal for Emily Moreno

Tuesday, July 7, 2026

"Judge Kennedy’s ruling is a victory for free speech," Subodh Chandra says.

“THWARTED”: Court denies Congressman Max Miller’s “emergency” discovery motion, advancing path to anti-SLAPP dismissal for Emily Moreno

Congressman Max Miller: thwarted in his abusive discovery "fishing expedition."

CLEVELAND, OH — Today, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas dealt a major blow to U.S. Representative Max Miller’s defamation lawsuit against his ex-wife Emily Moreno over domestic-abuse allegations published in The Daily Mail, denying the Congressman’s self-proclaimed “emergency” motion for expedited discovery. The Court ruled that Miller's sweeping requests fall outside the narrow limits that Ohio's anti-SLAPP statute, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) establishes. “SLAPP” refers to Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, which is what Moreno asserts Congressman Miller’s suit against her is—retaliation against someone for perceived speech on a matter of public concern.

A hearing on Emily Moreno’s and attorney Andrew Zashin’s respective motions to throw out Miller’s lawsuit will proceed on July 23, 2026 at 1:30 pm in Judge Joy Kennedy’s courtroom, 17-A, at the Cuyahoga County Justice Center.

The court’s ruling: complete stay of Miller’s litigation maintained

The court's ruling completely rejected Miller’s June 15, 2026, “emergency” motion, in which he sought to lift the discovery stay that Ohio’s new UPEPA statute requires when a defendant moves to dismiss a case because it is a strategic lawsuit against public participation in free speech. Miller had demanded several hours of deposition time to interrogate Ms. Moreno, her domestic-relations attorney Andrew Zashin, her parents (including U.S. Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH)), and The Daily Mail reporter Phillip Nieto, along with sweeping demands for native files and metadata.

The court ruled that the expansive discovery the Congressman seeks is unwarranted under the law, ordering that all previously scheduled case deadlines remain strictly in place. The decision insulates the defense from premature litigation costs and keeps the case on track for its scheduled June 23 anti-SLAPP dismissal hearing.

Dismantling an unlawful discovery “fishing expedition”

In an opposition brief to Miller’s discovery motion, Moreno’s counsel Subodh Chandra and Emily Bohatch of Chandra Law detailed why the Court should bar Miller's intrusive discovery demands:

  • Discovery cannot prove a negative: Ms. Moreno submitted an affidavit establishing that she never spoke to The Daily Mail or directed anyone else to leak records on her behalf.

  • Duplicative Interrogation: Miller already had a full opportunity to cross-examine Ms. Moreno under oath regarding media communications during a May 7, 2026, domestic-relations court hearing—hours before The Daily Mail published its article reporting on domestic-abuse allegations against Miller.

  • Unlawful Infringement on attorney-client privilege: The Congressman’s deposition demands sought to violate the attorney-client privilege between Ms. Moreno and her domestic-relations lawyer.

  • Defying the media shield: Miller’s attempt to compel a news organization to hand over transmission logs flouted Ohio’s reporter-shield statute (R.C. 2739.12), which strictly protects journalists from being forced to unmask sources in a legal proceeding.

  • Time-barred claims: Miller’s inquiries targeted private conversations from June 2024, disregarding Ohio's rigid one-year statute of limitations for speech-based claims.

  • Burdensome harassment: The sheer volume of the requested discovery—demanding at least nine hours of depositions and international corporate subpoenas under an unrealistic 28-day schedule—was an aggressive tactic to pile financial burdens onto the defendants, violating UPEPA’s primary goal to expeditiously terminate speech-chilling litigation.

Miller’s re-election braggadocio eliminates his legal basis for suit

Moreno had also filed multiple supplements to her motion for dismissal, arguing that the Congressman has made public statements torching his own claims.

In back-to-back June 4–5, 2026 televised interviews, for example, Congressman Miller confidently proclaimed to media outlets that the reported spousal-abuse allegations against him would have zero impact on his re-election campaign, stating, “We are going to win this election—by a lot,” and calling questions about political liability “a little insulting.” These were in addition to other public statements refuting his own claims. Because defamation and false-light claims fundamentally require clear proof of actual injury, professional impairment, and financial damages, Miller’s public-media braggadocio admits that he has suffered no legal damages.

“Judge Kennedy’s ruling is a victory for free speech and enforces the boundaries the General Assembly drew when it adopted Ohio’s UPEPA law,” Subodh Chandra, Emily Moreno’s lead counsel, said. “Congressman Miller speculatively and baselessly sued his ex-wife admittedly without a shred of evidence, and then tried to use a so-called 'emergency' discovery motion to mount an expensive, abusive fishing expedition. He has been thwarted.”

“Now, after the required hearing, Miller’s abusive lawsuit must be thrown out with prejudice, and the Congressman must be ordered to pay the mandatory attorney fees and costs the statute requires."

Ms. Moreno is defended 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.

Ms. Moreno's motion under UPEPA for expedited relief through dismissal may be found here.

The first supplement to that motion from June 3, 2026, based on additional conduct admissions by Rep. Miller may be found here.

A second supplement based on additional conduct by Miller, including what the filing argues are admissions about a hot-water incident with his wife, may be found here. The audio recording is available through here or from the Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts.

A third supplement about Miller’s admissions may be found here.

For more information about Ohio’s Uniform Public Expression Protection (UPEPA) Act (anti-SLAPP statute), read this.

About The Chandra Law Firm LLC

The Chandra Law Firm LLC is a boutique civil-rights and constitutional-law firm based in Cleveland, Ohio, known for holding public officials, powerful people, and institutions accountable.

Chandra Law is experienced obtaining justice for victims of First Amendment violations. This includes defending suits using Ohio’s UPEPA statute. We secured the first victory in Cuyahoga County, Ohio under the statute. We also secure other constitutional rights.

And the firm helped pioneer work in holding individuals and companies accountable for
civil liability for criminal acts, securing the two leading Supreme Court of Ohio decisions favorable to crime victims on the topic.

If you think that your rights have been violated, you may
contact us to discuss your options. But first please study our practice pages to ensure your case is a good fit.


At Chandra Law, your case is our cause®.

Related Practice Areas
Defamation (Libel and Slander)First AmendmentFirst Amendment RetaliationFree Speech for California Public Employees: Where the Line Is DrawnCalifornia’s Anti-SLAPP StatuteOhio’s Anti-SLAPP Statute
Tags
congressman-max-millerupepamax-milleranti-slappuniform-public-expression-protection-act-(upepa)emily-moreno

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