When a person claiming to have a cause of action or a defense to an action commenced against him, without the discovery of a fact from the adverse party, is unable to file his complaint or answer, he may bring an action for discovery, setting forth in his complaint in the action for discovery the necessity and the grounds for the action, with any interrogatories relating to the subject matter of the discovery that are necessary to procure the discovery sought. Unless a motion to dismiss the action is filed under Civil Rule 12, the complaint shall be fully and directly answered under oath by the defendant. Upon the final disposition of the action, the costs of the action shall be taxed in the manner the court deems equitable.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case: Poulos v. Parker Sweeper Co., 541 N.E.2d 1031 (Ohio 1989).
Poulos v. Parker Sweeper Co., 541 N.E.2d 1031 (Ohio 1989). · cites it 14דThis case involves our consideration of the proper scope, application and usage of R.C. 2317.48, which states in its entirety: “When a person claiming to have a cause of action or a defense to an action commenced against him, without the discovery of a fact from the adverse…”
Marsalis v. Wilson, 778 N.E.2d 612 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 16דIn both cases, the plaintiffs commenced an action for discovery pursuant to R.C. 2317.48, seeking information from the Champaign Telephone Company and several of its officers and directors concerning the company’s corporate reorganization and business operations.”
White v. Equity, Inc., 899 N.E.2d 205 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 28ד34(D) and R.C. 2317.48, and a tort action for spoliation of evidence.”
Riverview Health Inst., L.L.C. v. Kral, 2012 Ohio 3502 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 13ד” {¶ 8} Regarding dismissal of RHI’s complaint, the trial court reviewed the language of Civ.”
Tilr Corp. v. TalentNow, L.L.C., 2023 Ohio 1345 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 17ד34(D)(1) and R.C. 2317.48 against Talent & Vora and Crenshaw.”
Bright Future Partners, Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Distrib., L.L.C., 2017 Ohio 4145 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 7ד, (“Bright Future”) and Anne Chambers filed a complaint for discovery against The Proctor & Gamble Distributing, LLC, (“P&G”), citing R.C. 2317.48 and Civ.R. 34(D). The complaint included 15 requests for production of documents from P&G, allegedly necessary because Bright Future…”
Huge v. Ford Motor Co., 803 N.E.2d 859 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 9דKathleen Huge, appeals from the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, General Division, dismissing her petition for discovery pursuant to R.C. 2317.48. After reviewing the record and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court for the…”
Erwin v. Bryan, 2010 Ohio 2202 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 2ד15(D) to file a complaint designating a defendant by any name and designation when the plaintiff has identified but does not know the name of that party, provided that the plaintiff avers in the complaint that the name of the defendant could not be discovered and a summons…”
Baker v. Cooper Farms Cooked Meats, 2009 Ohio 3320 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 11ד34(D) and O.R.C. §2317.48.” In his petition Baker alleged that he was injured on October 6, 2008 while working in Cooper Farms’ factory by a “Rapid Pack One” machine.”
Colegate v. Lohbeck, 605 N.E.2d 1301 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 7דOn April 12, 1990, Clarence Colegate and Edward Metzger, plaintiffsappellees, filed a complaint for discovery, pursuant to R.C. 2317.48 and with accompanying interrogatories, against Paul Lohbeck, defendant-appellant.”
State ex rel. Morgan v. City of New Lexington, 857 N.E.2d 1208 (Ohio 2006). “, an action for discovery under R.C. 2317.48 or Civ.R. 34(D) before filing a civil case, does not preclude this mandamus action.”
Benner v. Walker Ambulance Co., 692 N.E.2d 1053 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 5דOn appeal, appellant, Walker Ambulance Company, asserts the following assignment of error: “The trial court erred in ordering defendant-appellant to answer interrogatories seeking information beyond the scope of R.C. 2317.48 and protected from disclosure.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.