Stepp v. Wiseco Piston Co., Inc.
2013 Ohio 5832
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Alyson Stepp, a Wiseco employee, alleged coworkers made false statements about her workplace conduct in summer 2012, leading to a five-day unpaid suspension.
- Stepp filed an action for discovery (R.C. 2317.48 and Civ.R. 34(D)) seeking the identities of the person(s) who made the allegations and the substance of their statements to evaluate and pursue defamation claims.
- Wiseco moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing Stepp merely sought a fishing expedition, had not established a viable defamation claim, and that the statements were protected by a qualified privilege requiring Stepp to plead actual malice.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and ordered Wiseco to respond to the discovery requests; Wiseco appealed and obtained a stay pending appeal.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo whether Stepp had pled sufficient facts for a discovery action and whether failure to plead actual malice justified dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stepp pled a sufficient basis for a pre-suit discovery action to identify potential defamers | Stepp alleged false statements caused suspension and damages and lacks only the identities of the speakers | Wiseco contended the complaint is only suspicion/hunch and an improper fishing expedition without a viable cause of action | Court held Stepp pleaded the elements of a defamation claim except the speakers’ identities, so discovery was permissible under R.C. 2317.48 / Civ.R. 34(D) |
| Whether Stepp had to plead actual malice in the complaint because alleged statements are qualifiedly privileged | Stepp need only plead prima facie defamation elements; privilege is an affirmative defense | Wiseco argued qualified privilege applies and plaintiff must plead facts showing actual malice to overcome it | Court held qualified privilege is an affirmative defense that must be pled by defendant; failure to plead actual malice is not a basis to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (standard for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (2004) (de novo review of Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- LeRoy v. Allen, Yurasek & Merklin, 114 Ohio St.3d 323 (2007) (pleading standards under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- Poulos v. Parker Sweeper Co., 44 Ohio St.3d 124 (1989) (limits on discovery-only actions; not a fishing expedition)
- Hahn v. Kotten, 43 Ohio St.2d 237 (1975) (qualified privilege as a defense in defamation actions)
- Evely v. Carlon Co., Div. of Indian Head, Inc., 4 Ohio St.3d 163 (1983) (once defendant asserts good-faith privilege, plaintiff must show actual malice to defeat it)
- Bridgestone/Firestone v. Hankook Tire Mfg. Co., Inc., 116 Ohio App.3d 228 (9th Dist. 1996) (complaint must aver facts revealing a potential cause of action)