Sultaana v. Keefe Supply Co.
2021 Ohio 3881
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background:
- Plaintiff Hakeem Sultaana, an Ohio prisoner, sued Keefe Supply Company in 2017 for product-liability/other torts; case active until dismissal in 2021.
- Long-running discovery disputes: Keefe repeatedly sought discovery responses served in 2017 that Sultaana largely did not provide for years.
- Sultaana missed two properly noticed depositions (Dec. 22, 2020 and Feb. 10, 2021) and failed to appear at a Feb. 26, 2021 videoconference status conference; the court had warned dismissal was a possible sanction.
- Keefe moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 37(B) and 41(B)(1) for discovery abuses and failure to appear; the court granted dismissal with prejudice on Feb. 26, 2021.
- Post-dismissal, Sultaana filed motions: to compel a non-party correctional facility (Lake Erie), to supplement the record (claiming a faxed "Notice of Quarantine"), and multiple Civ.R. 60(B) motions seeking reinstatement; the trial court denied all.
- Sultaana appealed, raising four assignments: (1) dismissal with prejudice, (2) denial of subpoena/compel against non-party, (3) denial of Civ.R. 60(B) relief, and (4) denial of motion to supplement the record.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal with prejudice under Civ.R.37/41 for discovery abuses and failure to appear | Dismissal was an abuse: he was quarantined and/or Zoom failed, excusing nonappearance | Dismissal was proper because Sultaana repeatedly failed to comply with discovery, missed depositions and status conference despite warnings | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; prolonged discovery noncompliance and missed proceedings justified dismissal |
| Motion to compel compliance by non-party Lake Erie Correctional Institution | Trial court should have compelled production in response to subpoena | Motion was defective: insufficient service on the non-party and no certification of good-faith attempts to obtain discovery | Affirmed — denial proper for lack of proper service and absence of required certification/conferral |
| Motion to supplement the record (App.R. 9(E)) to add faxed "Notice of Quarantine" | Faxed filing to clerk constituted a filed notice and should be added to conform record to truth (Rouse) | No evidence clerk received or docketed the document; App.R. 9(E) cannot add matters the trial court never considered | Affirmed — supplementation improper because there is no proof the document was part of the trial-court proceedings |
| Civ.R. 60(B) motions to reinstate case | Quarantine and court’s alleged failure to notify prison officials justify relief from judgment | Plaintiff failed to show operative facts excusing nonappearance or compliance; explanations were inconsistent and unsupported | Affirmed — 60(B) relief denied for failure to meet Civ.R. 60(B) requirements and inconsistent, uncorroborated excuses |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Holmes, 821 N.E.2d 568 (Ohio 2004) (supplementing the record under App.R. 9(E) is discretionary)
- Cobb v. Cobb, 403 N.E.2d 991 (Ohio 1980) (trial-court discretion over correction/modification of record)
- In re Estate of Reeck, 488 N.E.2d 195 (Ohio 1986) (App.R. 9(E) permits adding material actually considered by the trial court)
- Zanesville v. Rouse, 929 N.E.2d 1044 (Ohio 2010) (paper delivered in good faith to clerk may be treated as filed when clerk’s records corroborate receipt)
- State ex rel. Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators’ Labor Council v. Cleveland, 165 N.E.3d 214 (Ohio 2020) (reviewing court cannot add matter to record that was not part of trial-court proceedings)
- State ex rel. The V Cos. v. Marshall, 692 N.E.2d 198 (Ohio 1998) (appellate review of discovery rulings is for abuse of discretion)
- Quonset Hut, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 684 N.E.2d 319 (Ohio 1997) (dismissal under Civ.R. 41(B) is within trial-court discretion)
- Jones v. Hartranft, 678 N.E.2d 530 (Ohio 1997) (factors relevant to dismissal with prejudice for dilatory conduct)
- Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp., 662 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio 1996) (trial court has broad discretion imposing discovery sanctions under Civ.R. 37)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 351 N.E.2d 113 (Ohio 1976) (standards for relief under Civ.R. 60(B))
- In re Whitman, 690 N.E.2d 535 (Ohio 1998) (denial or grant of Civ.R. 60(B) is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Ransom v. Aldi, Inc., 95 N.E.3d 699 (Ohio 2017) (affirming dismissal where party failed to comply with discovery orders)