2012 Ohio 2266
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- HWI filed a petition for discovery under R.C. 2317.48 and Civ.R. 34(D) on Oct. 18, 2011.
- The trial court granted the petition on Oct. 18 and Oct. 19, 2011; service on Guaranteed Returns occurred Oct. 24, 2011.
- Guaranteed Returns was not served before the discovery orders were entered and had no notice or opportunity to respond.
- The petition sought pre-suit discovery to procure information necessary for a potential action.
- Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard; noncompliance is reversible error unless harmless.
- The appellate court reversed the discovery orders for lack of due process and remanded for guaranteed time to respond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process was violated by granting discovery without notice. | Guaranteed Returns contends no notice or opportunity to respond. | HWI contends the orders were properly granted to obtain discovery. | Yes; due process was violated; orders reversed and remanded for response time. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (Supreme Court 1950) (due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard)
- In re Thompkins, 115 Ohio St.3d 409 (Ohio 2007) (procedural due process in hearings; notice and opportunity to be heard)
- State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Floyd, 111 Ohio St.3d 56 (Ohio 2006) (due process and notice requirements in court access)
- Miller v. Lint, 62 Ohio St.2d 209 (Ohio 1980) (integrity of procedural rules; timely response required)
- In re Foreclosure of Liens for Delinquent Taxes, 79 Ohio App.3d 766 (Ohio App.3d 1992) (timely service and notice in discovery context)