Motion to Stay Discovery in Ohio

What Is a Motion to Stay Discovery?

Background

Ohio courts have the power to supervise their dockets, including the power to grant discretionary stays and continuances when appropriate. (See State ex rel. Buck v. McCabe (1942) 140 Ohio St. 535, 537, 45 N.E.2d 763 (A Court of Common Pleas has “supervisory power and control over its docket.”); Civ. R. 53 (“[T]he court may by order stay the effectiveness of a magistrate’s order.”); see also Colley v. Colley, Franklin App. No. 09AP-333, 2009-Ohio-6776, at ¶ 69 (“[T]he trial court had the authority to stay the effectiveness of the magistrate’s order as a result of [Appellant]’s motion to set aside, and its exercise of that authority in rendering its decisions on the related motions does not rise to the level of an abuse of discretion.”)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

In the discovery context, courts have held that, “it is appropriate to stay discovery until [an] underlying action is determined. The purpose of this is to avoid subjecting parties to the burden and expense of discovery.” Watley v. Wilkinson, Franklin App. No. 03AP-1039, 2004-Ohio-5062, at ¶ 18 citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982) 457 U.S. 800, 818.)

Indeed, “[i]nherent within a court's jurisdiction, and essential to the orderly and efficient administration of justice, is the power to grant or deny stays.” (State v. Hochhausler (1996) 76 Ohio St.3d 455, 464.)

Appeal of Order Denying a Stay

“According to R.C. 2711.02(C), ‘an order [...] that grants or denies a stay of a trial of any action pending arbitration [...] is a final order and may be reviewed, affirmed, modified, or reversed on appeal....‘” (Leight v. Osteosymbionics, L.L.C., 2016 Ohio 110, 7-8 [Ohio Ct. App. 2016].)

“An order denying a stay clearly is not an order that determines the action, is made in a special proceeding (i.e., was unknown at common law), vacates or sets aside a judgment or grants a new trial, or determines class action status. Consequently, it is final and appealable only if it grants or denies a ‘provisional remedy’ and meets the further conditions of R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)(a) and (b).” (Cleveland v. Zakaib [Oct. 12, 2000] Cuyahoga App. Nos. 76928, 76929, 76930.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

While “[a] trial court maintains the discretion to manage the discovery process,” such discretion is not without limits. (Estate of Welch v. Taylor Case No. CA2020-03-004, at *6 [Ohio Ct. App. 2020] citing BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Kolenich (2011) 194 Ohio App.3d 777, 2011-Ohio-3345, ¶ 18 [12th Dist.] at ¶ 19; Mauzy v. Kelly Services, Inc. (1996) 75 Ohio St.3d 578, 592.) “Although unusual, an appellate court will reverse a discovery order when the trial court has erroneously denied or limited discovery.” (Estate of Welch v. Taylor Case No. CA2020-03-004, at *6 [Ohio Ct. App. 2020] citing Mauzy at 592.) Thus, ‘an appellate court will reverse the decision of a trial court that extinguishes a party's right to discovery if the trial court's decision is improvident and affects the discovering party's substantial rights.’” (Id.)

The Court’s Decision

In Marks v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter (2004 Ohio 6419 [Ohio Ct. App. 2004] the court held that “a stay of discovery is not a ‘provisional remedy,’ the denial of which is subject to immediate appeal pursuant to R.C. 2505.02(B)(4).” (Id.) In its reasoning, the court opined that “[A reviewing Court] cannot characterize a request for a stay of discovery pending a ruling on a motion to compel arbitration as a means of preventing irreparable harm.” (Id.)

This was because “[t]he purpose — as stated by appellants in their motion to stay discovery — was to prevent duplicative discovery in the court proceedings and the anticipated arbitration proceedings. The potential for duplicative discovery is not an irreparable harm; it is at worst annoying and burdensome. Furthermore, nothing prevents the parties from avoiding duplication by using discovery obtained through court proceedings in any later arbitration proceedings.” (Marks v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 2004 Ohio 6419 [Ohio Ct. App. 2004].)

A stay of discovery is proper while the Court determines whether the Plaintiff's claims would be heard by the Court because “the discovery process is often the most expensive and time-consuming facet of civil litigation.” (Jane Doe (W.K.) v. Farrell, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21105, 2006-Ohio-2676, ¶ 31.)

Documents for Motion to Stay Discovery in Ohio

Sort By

13-CV-0312

4 pages

~ ~ IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF WAYNE COUNTY, OHIO 7 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR PARTIAL AUDREY P. CARMEL, Trustee of The Carmel Case No. 13-CV-0312 * Family Revocable Trust dated October 7, 2003 * * * Plaintiff SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF THE * PLAINTIFF, AUDREY P. CARMEL, vs. » TRUSTEE OF THE CARMEL FAMILY , REVOCABLE TRUST DATED OCTOBER KENNETH R. CARMEL, et al. 7, 2003; SUPPLEMENTAL * — MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PRIOR Defendants * — MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO + DEEM THE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION…

Case Name 13-CV-0312 - AUDREY P CARMEL, TRUSTEE OF THE CARMEL vs. CARMEL, KENNETH R