The Save the Mill Creek Park Deer group have won a small victory in its ongoing legal battles with the Mill Creek MetroParks Board of Commissioners.

Judge Jon Campbell, whose been appointed to oversee this case, notified board members of the park that they need to address 11 complaints raised by the deer rights group.

Chief among them is the accusation that the board failed to exercise due diligence in the performance of their duties to the public.

Additionally, the complaint alleges the park dismissed reasonable safety concerns raised by people who lived near the park. It also claims the board refused to address concerns from constituents regarding police response times to Springfield Woods.

The complaint accuses MetroParks Executive Director Aaron Young of firing park employees without justification as well as eliminating "much of the parks programming," including summer music programs and several children's programs. 

Not included in this judgement are complaints regarding much of the deer hunt, including concerns about how hunters used the park, where hunting was permitted and safety concerns regarding how the hunters were allowed to hunt.

Those issues are being considered in a separate legal case, according to court records.

The judgement entry, which was sent to Young and the five parks board commissioners Lee Frey, Paul Olivier, Thomas Frost, Germaine Bennett and Jeff Harvey, required responses by May 10.

The deer rights group garnered about 2,500 signatures demanding for the ousting of the board, which prompted the recusal of Judge Robert Rusu, who appointed them.

Whether or not this signals a shift in the ongoing legal battles for the group remains to be seen.

As it stands judges and magistrates have sided with the MetroParks' board in its decision to cull the deer of Mill Creek Metroparks in recent attempts to stop it.

You can read the groups full complaint below, for reference, the judge has ordered responses to paragraphs eight, nine, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, and 21. Additionally, responses for paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 were requested by the court:

 

RELATED: