Ogle v. Kroger Co.
2014 Ohio 1099
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Melanie Ogle was criminally convicted of assault on a peace officer; while awaiting sentencing she confronted juror/cashier Janette Williams at a Kroger store. Kroger’s manager (Norris) issued a no-trespass letter and a local paper ran an article that Ogle was banned from Kroger.
- Ogle sued Kroger and Norris pro se for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the no-trespass statement and related publicity.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment in December 2012, attaching trial transcripts, affidavits, and the newspaper article. The court twice set non-oral hearing dates and notified parties that after those dates it would consider the motions.
- Ogle sought discovery (including depositions); the court granted a protective order in February 2013, ordered Ogle to provide compliant discovery responses by February 28, and allowed her additional time to respond to the summary-judgment motion. Ogle deposed Williams in April but did not file the transcript or pursue further depositions.
- In September 2013 defendants moved to establish a briefing schedule; the court set a non-oral summary-judgment submission date (October 9, 2013). Ogle did not file a Civ.R. 56(F) motion to delay ruling for additional discovery and did not file a substantive response before the court granted summary judgment. Ogle appealed complaining of inadequate notice and denial of opportunity to complete discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court deprived Ogle of due process/adequate notice before ruling on summary judgment | Ogle says the court gave less than 20 days’ notice of the non-oral hearing and did not set deadlines, so she lacked a fair opportunity to complete discovery and respond | Defendants point to the court’s written non-oral hearing notice (which set the submission date well beyond Civ.R. 56 minimums) and Ogle’s failure to request a delay under Civ.R. 56(F) | Court held notice was adequate; non-oral hearing notice satisfied Civ.R. 56 due-process requirements and timeline was more than sufficient |
| Whether the court abused its discretion in regulating discovery by ruling before discovery finished | Ogle argues she needed additional depositions and time to respond | Defendants argue Ogle had repeated opportunities, the court ordered discovery compliance and she failed to follow through; she did not move to continue under Civ.R. 56(F) | Court held no abuse of discretion because Ogle failed to file a Civ.R. 56(F) motion or otherwise request more time; she had months to complete discovery and deposed Williams |
| Whether failure to complete discovery before a summary-judgment ruling requires reversal | Ogle contends incomplete discovery prevented meaningful opposition | Defendants counter that Civ.R. 56(B) allows early motions and Civ.R. 56(F) provides the remedy for parties needing more time | Court reiterated that the proper remedy is Civ.R. 56(F); because Ogle did not invoke it, lack of additional discovery is not a basis for reversal |
| Whether procedural irregularities warranted remand | Ogle claims the court’s scheduling and discovery rulings were arbitrary and prejudicial | Defendants maintain the court acted within its discretion and provided clear submission date and compliance deadlines | Court affirmed judgment and declined to remand, finding the court’s procedures reasonable and Ogle did not preserve objections by motion under Civ.R. 56(F) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hooten v. Safe Auto Ins. Co., 100 Ohio St.3d 8 (Ohio 2003) (trial court must give nonmoving party notice of the deadline date for response or the date motion is deemed submitted under Civ.R. 56)
- Vacha v. North Ridgeville, 136 Ohio St.3d 199 (Ohio 2013) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment; cited for general summary-judgment principles)