Decuzzi v. City of Westlake
947 N.E.2d 1229
Ohio Ct. App.2010Background
- Appellants, the city of Westlake and Mayor Clough, appeal a trial court ruling granting appellees’ motion to compel discovery responses.
- Appellees—current and former city employees—filed March 16, 2009 a complaint alleging wrongful termination, pay discrimination, hostile/work unsafe environments, and witness intimidation.
- During discovery, appellees served interrogatories and document requests; interrogatories 3, 6, and 12 are at issue on appeal.
- The city objected to interrogatories as vague/overbroad and argued Civ.R. 26 does not allow discovery of the factual bases for affirmative defenses, citing Sawyer v. Devore.
- The trial court granted the motion to compel; the city challenged on grounds that the requested material was privileged work product and beyond Civ.R. 26’s scope.
- The court of appeals reverses, holding the trial court abused its discretion, and suggests in camera review to distinguish discoverable material from work product.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interrogatory 3 seeks discoverable factual bases for defenses. | DeCuzzi argues requests are within Civ.R. 26 and do not improperly compel work product. | Westlake contends interrogatory 3 is vague/overbroad and seeks work-product information. | Interrogatory 3 is vague/overbroad and may seek work product; but discovery of facts supporting defenses is permitted with limits. |
| Whether interrogatories 6 and 12 seek impermissible opinion work-product. | DeCuzzi asserts these ask for factual or discoverable material relevant to defenses. | Westlake argues these demand the attorney’s mental impressions and are not discoverable. | Interrogatories 6 and 12 seek opinion work-product and are beyond Civ.R. 26; privileged unless notification of defense is provided. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by not conducting an in camera review. | Appellees contend in camera review is unnecessary because material is discoverable. | City argues in camera review is required to distinguish work product from discoverable material. | The trial court abused its discretion; an in camera review is appropriate to resolve the discovery scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (Supreme Court, 1947) (establishes work-product doctrine; good cause standard governing discovery)
- Jackson v. Greger, 110 Ohio St.3d 488 (Ohio 2006) (defines 'good cause' for Civ.R. 26(B)(3) discovery)
- Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P. v. Givaudan Flavors Corp., 127 Ohio St.3d 161 (Ohio 2010) (explains scope of discovery and good cause)
- Huntington Natl. Bank v. Dixon, 2010-Ohio-4668 (Ohio) (discovery privileges and work-product considerations; in part discusses Civ.R. 26)
- State v. Hoop, 134 Ohio App.3d 627 (Ohio App. 1999) (work-product privilege considerations in Ohio appellate review)
- Alpha Benefits Agency, Inc. v. King Ins. Agency, Inc., 134 Ohio App.3d 673 (Ohio App. 1999) (recognizes discovery of facts supporting affirmative defenses)