Breach of Contract Cases

Appellant Rhododendron has not identified anywhere in the record where it sought a delay under Civ.R. 56(F) or otherwise alleged prejudice as a result of the trial court's considering the appellees' summary-judgment motion without first resolving a pending motion to compel discovery. This failure by Rhododendron waived the issue. The trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of appellee Thomas Bradley Harris on a claim alleging a violation of Ohio's Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The record reveals a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Harris misappropriated a trade secret under R.C. 1331.61(B)(2)(b) by knowingly using \design-history files\ from a company called NovoSource without consent in a way that violated a duty to limit his use of the files. A trier of fact reasonably might find the existence of such a duty based on testimony about an oral agreement between Harris and Andrew Cothrel, the CEO of NovoSource, limiting Harris' use of the files. The record reveals no genuine issue of material fact, however, as to whether appellees Andrew Rynearson or Jack Diamond misappropriated the design-history files by impermissibly using them. The trial court did not err in entering summary judgment against appellant Rhododendron on two counts alleging breach of contract. Rhododendron brought the claims as assignee and successor in interest to the rights of NovoSource. But the contracts at issue were not among the NovoSource assets that Rhododendron acquired. The contracts explicitly were excluded from the NovoSource assets that Rhododendron acquired. Finally, the trial court did not err in entering summary judgment against Rhododendron on three other counts. The appellees' summary-judgment motion partially incorporated by reference arguments made in their earlier motion to dismiss counts one, two, and fourteen. But the act of incorporating by reference arguments made in a prior motion to dismiss did not impermissibly \convert\ the motion to dismiss into o

Trial court grant of summary judgment is affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part. Summary judgment, de novo review, trade secrets, breach of contract, intentional torts

In this breach of warranties and breach of contract action brought by appellant for damages caused by an allegedly defective product purchased from appellee, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to appellee based on the court's determination that appellant had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Based on the record and construing the facts of the amended complaint in favor of appellant, this Court finds that the record contains evidence that support facts entitling it to at least recovery of direct damage, and therefore the trial court's dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was improper under law. Judgment reversed cause remanded.

attorney-client privilege – emails – drafts – communications between client and attorney – communications between employees – legal advice – business purpose

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE – INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – CONTRACT – NONCOMPETITION RESTRICTIONS: The trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting a cardiothoracic surgeon's motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent his employer from enforcing the noncompetition restrictions in his employment agreement that prevented him from working in contiguous counties for a 12-month period following the termination of his employment where there was no evidence that the surgeon possessed or used the employer's confidential information, and thus no evidence that unfair competition would result from the surgeon's hiring by a hospital within the restricted area and restricted period.