Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc.

This court held in the syllabus of Jones v. Murphy (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 84, that “Civ. R. 37 permits the exclusion of expert *85testimony pursuant to a motion in limine as a sanction for the violation of Civ. R. 26(E)(1)(b).” In reaching this conclusion we reasoned at 86:

“One of the purposes of the Rules of Civil Procedure is to eliminate surprise. This is accomplished by way of a discovery procedure which mandates a free flow of accessible information between the parties upon request, and which imposes sanctions for failure to timely respond to reasonable inquiries. Appellants argue that a…