Defending product liability cases can involve contending with over-pleading, where complaints contain broad, speculative allegations lacking factual support. While some leniency is expected early in litigation, Ohio Civ.R. 11 and R.C. 2323.51 provide mechanisms to address frivolous conduct and ensure that claims are grounded in law and fact. These rules help defense attorneys hold opposing counsel accountable for improper filings or actions and, when used thoughtfully, can promote professionalism and efficiency in the litigation process.
In a recent article for the Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys (OACTA) Quarterly Review, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partner Megan Bosak examines the role of Ohio Civ.R. 11 and R.C. 2323.51 in managing over-pleading in product litigation. Bosak compares Ohio’s subjective bad-faith standard under Civ.R. 11 with the broader, objective standard of R.C. 2323.51, offering practical guidance on when and how to invoke these provisions. Her analysis underscores the importance of using these tools to restore focus in litigation and prevent unnecessary delays.
Bosak is a skilled litigator with an impressive record of success in complex, high-value, and multi-party litigation. She is licensed to practice in Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky, where she counsels clients in matters related to long-term care issues, medical malpractice, toxic tort, and commercial disputes. She has experience in all stages of litigation, including case strategy and development, depositions, expert witness discovery, motion practice, negotiations, trial, and appeals.
Read the full article in the OACTA Quarterly Review Fall/Winter 2025 issue.