Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Hankook Tire Manufacturing Co.

7 Citing cases

  1. Natl. City Bank, N.E. v. Amedia

    118 Ohio App. 3d 542 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that the complaint for discovery must contain sufficient facts to reveal a potential cause of action

    The complaint for discovery must aver "sufficient facts to reveal a `potential cause of action.'" Bridgestone/Firestone v. Hankook Tire Mfg. Co., Inc., 116 Ohio App.3d 228, 232, 687 N.E.2d 502, 504 (1996), quoting Poulos, supra, at 128, 541 N.E.2d at 1035. In other words, "it must be clear to the court what the underlying claim is about."

  2. Sizemore v. ESIS, Inc.

    2012 Ohio 4004 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)

    {¶11} The complaint for discovery must "aver sufficient facts to reveal a 'potential cause of action.'" Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Hankook Tire Mfg. Co., Inc., 116 Ohio App.3d 228, 232 (9th Dist.1996); Civ.R. 34(D)(1)(a). Further, the discovery requested must be narrowly tailored to the specific facts necessary for pleading.

  3. Tilr Corp. v. TalentNow, LLC

    2023 Ohio 1345 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)

    To that end, Tilr requested a list of vendors and customers with whom Crenshaw worked when she was employed with TalentNow and all communications between Crenshaw and Cremalab, LLC. Talent & Vora contend that this is insufficient for a presuit discovery action under R.C. 2137.48 and liken that allegation to Bridgestone/Firestone v. Hankook Tire Mfg. Co., 116 Ohio App.3d 228, 233, 687 N.E.2d 502 (9th Dist.1996). In Bridgestone, dismissal was proper because Bridgestone/Firestone failed to allege facts underlying its "reason to believe" that Hankook, a company that employed a person who formerly worked for Bridgestone/Firestone, obtained confidential and proprietary information.

  4. Stepp v. Wiseco Piston Co.

    2013 Ohio 5832 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)

    {¶22} In contrast to the cases cited by Wiseco, which affirm the dismissal of discovery actions, Stepp has averred sufficient facts to reveal a potential cause of action. Bridgestone/Firestone v. Hankook Tire Mfg. Co., Inc., 116 Ohio App.3d 228, 232, 687 N.E.2d 502 (9th Dist.1996) (a complaint must "aver sufficient facts to reveal a 'potential cause of action'"). Every element of a cause of action for defamation is present, absent only the identity of the person or persons making the allegedly defamatory statements.

  5. Charvat v. GVN Michigan, Inc.

    2010 Ohio 3209 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    {¶ 11} Respondent argues the trial court properly granted its motion to dismiss the petition in discovery because the petition failed to articulate a cognizable claim. See Moritz v. S. Ohio Corr Facility (Dec. 22, 1998), 10th Dist. No. 98AP-574, citing Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Hankook Tire Mfg. Co., Inc. (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 228, 232 (finding dismissal of petition in discovery proper where petitioner "failed to aver sufficient facts to reveal a `potential cause of action' against either defendant"). According to respondent, res judicata bars any potential claim.

  6. Baker v. Cooper Farms Cooked Meats

    2009 Ohio 3320 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)

    {¶ 21} In this case, Appellee failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain the discovery voluntarily, his request for discovery was overbroad, and his petition failed to assert that he had a cause of action (claim) and the grounds for that claim. {¶ 22} In Bridgestone/Firestone v. Hankook Tire Mfg. Co. (1996), 116 Ohio App. 3d 228, the Ninth Appellate District reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss because the petitioner alleged that it had "reason to believe" that there was a cause of action and found that the petition "failed to aver sufficient facts to reveal a `potential cause of action' * * *." Id. at 232.

  7. Cleveland Construction, Inc., v. Carr

    Case No. 98-A-0002 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 18, 1998)   Cited 3 times

    Id. at 128. In Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Hankook Tire Mfg. Co., Inc. (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 228, 232, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's granting of the appellant's motion to dismiss because the appellee "failed to aver sufficient facts to reveal a `potential cause of action' against [the appellant]. Although it averred that it had `reason to believe' that [the appellant] had obtained confidential, proprietary information belonging to it * * * those averments were not sufficient for purposes of Section 2317.48.