Dugas v. Moraine Police Chief
2021 Ohio 2428
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Pro se plaintiff Greg Dugas filed a pre-suit “Action for Discovery” under R.C. 2317.48 seeking extensive materials (police dispatch logs, officer names/ranks and personnel/disciplinary files, cruiser/body-cam video, and Walmart surveillance) related to police contact on Oct. 23–26, 2019 and a subsequent aggravated-robbery arrest.
- Dugas alleged a prolonged police show of force at a pavilion after leaving a Moraine Walmart and later claimed officers withheld exculpatory evidence; he sought discovery to identify potential defendants and support a future civil suit.
- The City of Moraine (Chief of Police and Civil Service Commission) and Walmart moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
- The trial court dismissed, explaining pre-suit discovery under R.C. 2317.48 is limited to interrogatories and Dugas’s requests for documents and video were overbroad; the petition also failed Civ.R. 34(D) requirements (no showing of voluntary prefiling requests or necessity).
- Dugas appealed, arguing the dismissal should have been labeled “without prejudice” / “not on the merits” to avoid res judicata bars when he later files substantive claims. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Dugas' Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dugas' R.C. 2317.48 pre-suit discovery petition was proper | Dugas argued his requests were proper to identify defendants and preserve claims; he included substantive allegations to explain discovery needs | Defendants argued R.C. 2317.48 limits pre-suit discovery to interrogatories and the petition sought documents and video beyond that scope | Court held petition was overbroad and dismissed under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) because it sought more than interrogatories and amounted to a fishing expedition |
| Whether Dugas met Civ.R. 34(D) prerequisites for pre-suit discovery | Dugas claimed compliance with statutory pleading requirements and that discovery was necessary | Defendants pointed out Dugas failed to show he had sought discovery voluntarily before filing or that he could not bring a civil action without the requested materials | Court held Dugas failed to satisfy Civ.R. 34(D) (no prior voluntary requests and no pleading that discovery was necessary), supporting dismissal |
| Whether the dismissal should have been explicitly labeled “without prejudice” / “not on the merits” | Dugas asserted the court’s order should state those terms to preserve his ability to later sue on the merits without res judicata consequences | Defendants argued dismissal of the pre-suit discovery action was proper and that res judicata as to that discovery action would apply regardless of specific language | Court held the Civ.R.12(B)(6) dismissal applies to the discovery action only; labeling was unnecessary because dismissal bars refiling the same discovery action but does not preclude substantive suits if otherwise proper |
| What res judicata effect the dismissal has | Dugas feared claim preclusion would bar future substantive suits | Defendants relied on precedent that a dismissal of a pre-suit discovery action is res judicata as to the discovery petition itself | Court held res judicata applies to the discovery action only; Dugas is barred from refiling the same pre-suit discovery claim but may pursue substantive claims later if otherwise proper |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Nesti v. DeBartolo Realty Corp., 113 Ohio St.3d 59, 862 N.E.2d 803 (2007) (explains the two-part doctrine of res judicata: claim preclusion and issue preclusion)
- Brown v. Dayton, 89 Ohio St.3d 245, 730 N.E.2d 958 (2000) (discusses claim preclusion principles)
- Grava v. Parkman, 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226 (1995) (explains that a dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes)