Motion to Compel Depositions in Ohio

What Is a Motion to Compel Depositions?

Background

“Civ.R. 37 allows a party whose discovery requests have not been answered to file a motion to compel discovery responses but provides that such a motion may be made only after the movant has made a good-faith effort to confer with the party that has failed to respond. Civ.R. 37 further provides that the court may grant the motion to compel and issue an order compelling discovery responses and that if the order is ignored, the court may impose sanctions, including granting a default judgment against the disobedient party.” (Arnoff v. PAJ Enters. (2022) 2022 Ohio 1759, 12 [Ohio Ct. App. 2022].)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 26 permits the discovery of any information that appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (See Rule 26.) Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 37(A) permits a party to move for an order compelling discovery, including depositions, if another party fails to appropriately respond to discovery requests. (Id.)

Motion to Compel Non-Party Deposition

“Civ.R. 30(A) provides that the attendance of a nonparty witness deponent should be compelled by the use of subpoena, as provided by Civ.R. 45.” (Safelite Glass Corp. v. Clara Kagy, No. 99AP-875, at *1 [Ohio Ct. App. June 1, 2000] citing Fletcher v. Bolz (1987) 35 Ohio App.3d 129, 131.) “The Supreme Court of Ohio has specifically found that it is not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion to compel the deposition of a nonparty when such nonparty is not subpoenaed pursuant to Civ.R. 45.” (Safelite Glass Corp., supra, citing State ex rel. The V. Cos. v. Marshall (1998) 81 Ohio St.3d 467, 469.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Under Ohio law, ‘[t]rial courts possess broad discretion over the discovery process,’ and an appellate court reviews a trial court's decision on a discovery matter for an abuse of discretion.” (MA Equip. Leasing I, LLC v. Tilton, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-564, 2012-Ohio-4668,” Abercrombie v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 2017 Ohio 5606, 9 [Ohio Ct. App. 2017].)

“Where, however, the discovery issue involves the assertion of privilege, it presents a question of law that must be reviewed de novo, unless it involves a question of fact-such as whether an attorney-client relationship existed.” (Desmond v. Gains, 2022 Ohio 200, 10-11 [Ohio Ct. App. 2022] citing Randall v. Cantwell Mach. Co., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-786, 2013-Ohio-2744, ¶ 9. “Questions of fact are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” (Id.)

Meet and Confer Requirement

“Pursuant to Civ. R. 37(E), parties must sign and certify that every reasonable effort has been made to resolve their discovery disputes.” (Id.)

The Court’s Decision

“[T]he trial court has inherent authority to control all matters relating to discovery. (Scott v. Schneider, No. 74120, at *1 [Ohio Ct. App. June 17, 1999] citing Gruenspan v. Seitz [Nov. 13, 1997], Cuyahoga App. No. 71712, [unreported], citing State ex rel. Grandview Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Gorman (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 94, 95. “‘An appellate court will not second guess the trial court's ruling on discovery issues in the absence of an abuse of discretion.’” (Scott, supra, id., citing Baynard v. Oakwood Village (Oct. 16, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 71711, [unreported].)

“[A] trial court is permitted to dismiss a case ... against a party who fails to comply with a court order, including discovery orders.” (Ransom v. Aldi, Inc. (2017) 95 N.E.3d 699, 704 [Ohio Ct. App.] citing Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. C–5 Constr., Inc., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23792, 2010-Ohio-4762, 2010 WL 3835254, ¶ 32, citing Civ.R. 37(B) and Civ.R. 41(B)(1).) “To that end, Civ.R. 37(B)(1)(e) provides, in pertinent part, that: ‘If a party ... fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order made under Civ.R. 35 or Civ.R. 37(A), the court may issue further just orders. They may include the following: ... (e) Dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part[.]’” (Ransom v. Aldi, Inc., id.)

Documents for Motion to Compel Depositions in Ohio

Sort By

ESTATE OF TREVIAN TUGGLE, ET AL. vs. FAIRVIEW HOSPITAL, ET AL. document preview

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL INSPECTION OF PLAINTIFFS ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RE…

1 page

164167714 164 67714 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO ESTATE OF TREVIAN TUGGLE, ET AL. Case No: CV-23-974458 Plaintiff Judge: SHANNON M GALLAGHER FAIRVIEW HOSPITAL, ET AL. Defendant JOURNAL ENTRY PLAINTIFFS MO…

Case Name ESTATE OF TREVIAN TUGGLE, ET AL. vs. FAIRVIEW HOSPITAL, ET AL.