U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Keefer, 2014 Ohio 4759

U.S. Bank filed a foreclosure complaint on Sept. 1, 2011, attaching the original note and mortgage for property owned by Melissa and Daymond Keefer.
The Keefers answered and stated an intent to pursue discovery vigorously and expected to complete discovery within six months, but they never served any discovery requests on U.S. Bank or moved to compel discovery.
The trial court granted the Keefers’ request for foreclosure mediation; the case remained in mediation ~18 months and was referred out on April 12, 2013.
During the pendency of the case U.S. Bank served interrogatories, document requests, and requests for admissions on the Keefers, which went unanswered.
U.S. Bank moved for summary judgment on July 29, 2013; the Keefers did not file any response to the motion.
The trial court granted summary judgment and a decree of foreclosure on Sept. 18, 2013; the Keefers appealed arguing they were denied the opportunity to conduct discovery before summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court denied Keefer the opportunity to conduct discovery before granting summary judgment.	U.S. Bank argued discovery was available but the Keefers never propounded discovery or sought court intervention; summary judgment was supported by affidavit and exhibits.	Keefers contended the court "refused" to allow them to pursue discovery and adjudicated the case without information obtainable through discovery.	Court held Keefers were not prevented from conducting discovery, had ample time (including during mediation), but never served requests or moved to compel; assignment of error overruled.

State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 124 (2009) (pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as represented parties)