2012 Ohio 1798
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Wiltz filed a pro se complaint on Feb. 3, 2009 against numerous defendants alleging whistleblower, wrongful discharge, race discrimination/retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Defendants moved to compel discovery; a deposition notice listed August 10–11, 2010, which Wiltz did not attend.
- The court granted a motion to compel Wiltz to attend depositions December 6, 8–10, 2010, at defense counsel’s office.
- Wiltz canceled December 6 due to a medical emergency but did not attend December 8; remaining dates were canceled by appellees.
- Appellees moved for sanctions and dismissal for failure to comply with discovery; Wiltz did not respond to the motion.
- The trial court dismissed Wiltz’s complaint with prejudice on January 31, 2011, and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sanctions for failure to attend deposition proper? | Wiltz contends due process was violated by not hearing her response. | Appellees argue dismissal for noncompliance is warranted; due process not violated. | No reversible error; sanctions and dismissal upheld. |
| Was dismissal an abuse of discretion given illness? | Dismissal was improper due to medical emergency. | Record shows no proof of involuntary illness preventing compliance. | No abuse of discretion; illness not sufficiently proven. |
| Bias of trial judge; due process concerns? | Judge biased and retaliatory against Wiltz. | Affidavit of disqualification found no basis for bias. | No reversible error based on bias claim. |
| Relief from judgment properly denied after appeal filed? | Should have been considered under Civ.R. 60(B) post-appeal. | Trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on Civ.R. 60(B) motion after appeal. | Motion for relief denied for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Date-stamp of judgment entry accurate? | Assertion that the judgment date is false. | No evidence the time-stamped date is incorrect. | Date-stamp affirmed as accurate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carskadon v. Avakian, 2011-Ohio-4423 (5th Dist. 2011) (pro se subject to same rules as represented parties)
- Aydin Co. Exchange, Inc. v. Marting Realty, 118 Ohio App.3d 274 (9th Dist. 1997) (discretion to sanction for discovery abuse)
- Shoreway Circle, Inc. v. Gerald Skoch Co., L.P.A., 92 Ohio App.3d 823 (8th Dist. 1994) ( Civ.R. 37 sanctions discretion standard)
- Kilroy v. B.H. Lakeshore Co., 111 Ohio App.3d 357 (8th Dist. 1996) (duty to monitor progress; standard for procedural compliance)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard for sanctions)
- Jones v. Hartranft, 78 Ohio St.3d 368 (1997) (trial court's dismissal decision within sound discretion)
- Pitts v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 67 Ohio St.2d 378 (1981) ( Civ.R. 60(B) relief; limited by appellate remand)
- Howard v. Catholic Social Servs. of Cuyahoga Cty., Inc., 70 Ohio St.3d 141 (1994) (jurisdiction considerations post-appeal)
- Mills Transfer, Inc. v. Z & Z Distributing Co., not provided in excerpt (1991) ( discovery sanctions framework)