(plaintiff properly disclosed all required parties to defendant (Ohio Department of Agriculture) upon application for operational permits for chicken processing facility; undisclosed investor merely passive, and "Option to Purchase" agreement gave investor no more right to control plaintiff than commercial lender would possess and, thus, need not be disclosed under Ohio law; testimony of defendant's expert did not squarely address operative issue in case and plaintiff's expert testimony much more germane and persuasive than testimony of defendant's expert; as such, defendant acted unreasonably (even under high deferential standard) in favoring testimony of defendant's expert at administrative hearing).