Caiazza v. Mercy Med. Ctr., Inc., 2012 Ohio 3940

Caiazza was terminated for admitting to touching Jones, leading to criminal charges (sexual imposition, later disorderly conduct).
Caiazza filed suit against Mercy Medical Center and Jennifer Jones alleging spoliation, sex discrimination, fraud, unlawful retaliation, and aiding and abetting unlawful discrimination.
Caiazza subpoenaed MMC for employee records, videos, and investigation materials related to Caiazza and Jones; MMC allegedly failed to provide all records.
MMC and Jones moved to compel discovery, asserting waiver of attorney-client privilege and, alternatively, in limine/summary judgment theories.
The trial court granted the motions to compel, finding waiver due to alleged fraud/spoliation and allowed discovery; the ruling was appealed.
The court of appeals reversed and remanded for an evidentiary/in-camera determination to distinguish privileged from unprivileged materials and permit disclosure only of non-privileged items.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion	Caiazza contends waiver invalidates privilege entirely.	MMC/Jones argue discovery of confidential materials is proper due to waiver/need for case defense.	Yes; court abused discretion; remanded for in-camera/evidentiary review to separate materials.

Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1998) (attorney-client privilege is not absolute; exceptions exist)
Jackson v. Greger, 110 Ohio St.3d 488 (2006) (good cause for discovery; privilege analysis in discovery)
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P. v. Givaudan Flavors Corp., 127 Ohio St.3d 161 (2010) (work-product doctrine scope and waivers; disclosures and protections)
Grace v. Mastruserio, 182 Ohio App.3d 243 (2007) (need for in-camera or evidentiary review of entire case file when compelling disclosure)
Estate of Hohler v. Hohler, 185 Ohio App.3d 420 (2009) (limits on disclosure and work-product considerations in discovery)