Citibank, N.A. v. Hine
93 N.E.3d 108
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Citibank sued Katherine Hine to collect a credit-card debt and noticed depositions of Hine (a party) and Karen Stanley (a non‑party). Citibank alleged Stanley had relevant factual knowledge as an authorized user and had communicated about the account.
- Hine and Stanley jointly moved for a protective order: Hine asserted she resides in Uruguay and should not be compelled to sit (or should be deposed remotely); Stanley sought to quash the subpoena, asserting attorney‑client and clergy privileges and undue burden from document review.
- The trial court granted Citibank’s motion to compel: it ordered Hine to sit for a deposition (via electronic means chosen by Citibank, or in person in Chillicothe if she failed to cooperate) and ordered Stanley to appear in Chillicothe for a deposition. The court scheduled possible sanctions proceedings and further case management events.
- Stanley appeared for her deposition but declined to proceed without counsel; the deposition did not go forward.
- Appellants sought a stay and appealed the discovery order; Citibank argued the orders were not final appealable. The appellate court sua sponte questioned jurisdiction and ordered briefing on final appealability.
- The Fourth District concluded the deposition orders were not final appealable orders and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction; the stay motion was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Citibank) | Defendant's Argument (Hine / Stanley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s order requiring non‑party Stanley to appear for deposition is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) | The order compelled testimony from a witness and is reviewable only after final judgment; implicitly argued the appeal lacks jurisdiction | Stanley argued the order effectively denied her motion to quash the subpoena and implicated attorney‑client and clergy privileges, so it is a final appealable order | Not final and not appealable now: court found record insufficient to show compelled disclosure of privileged material; objections at deposition could be made and trial court could later rule — R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) not satisfied |
| Whether the trial court’s order requiring party Hine (resident abroad) to appear for deposition is a final, appealable order | Civ.R. 30(A) permits notice to compel party depositions regardless of residence; the discovery order is interlocutory | Hine argued compelling her to appear while she resides in Uruguay and privileging concerns make the order final and appealable | Not final and not appealable now: ordering a party to sit for deposition is generally interlocutory; privilege issues are not yet adjudicated and can be raised at deposition and on later motion |
Key Cases Cited
- General Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 1989) (orders must be final before appellate review)
- Walters v. Enrichment Center of Wishing Well, Inc., 78 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 1997) (discovery rulings are generally interlocutory and not final)
- Foor v. Huntington Natl. Bank, 27 Ohio App.3d 76 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986) (denial of motion to quash subpoena to non‑party attorney treated as final under unique circumstances)
- Dispatch Printing Co. v. Recovery Ltd. P’ship, 166 Ohio App.3d 118 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) (order overruling non‑party’s objections to subpoena and denying protective order was not final where trial court retained ability to protect sensitive information)
- Midwest Sportservice, Inc. v. Andreoli, 3 Ohio App.3d 242 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981) (party may be compelled to attend deposition by notice regardless of residence)