Hart v. Alamo Rent A Car
959 N.E.2d 15
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Hart, guardian of Timothy J. Hart Jr., sues after Timothy’s brain injury from being trapped under a rental vehicle.
- Hart seeks the nonparty Chang’s Social Security number to locate Chang for essential testimony; Chang is a former employee of Alamo/National/Vanguard.
- Hart argues Chang’s discussion with Timothy could be dispositive and SSN is not privileged and discoverable with confidentiality protections.
- Rental companies move for protective order, citing privacy laws, lack of Chang’s consent, and futile efforts to locate Chang using the SSN.
- Trial court grants Hart’s motion to compel discovery of the SSN and denies the protective order, conditioning on a confidentiality agreement.
- Appellate court balances privacy interests against discovery needs and holds Hart’s interests outweigh Chang’s privacy; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Chang’s Social Security number discoverable? | Hart—SSN not privileged; needed to locate Chang; confidentiality adequate. | Rental companies—SSN is highly private; no consent; discovery improper. | Yes, discoverable with confidentiality. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion on the protective order ruling? | Hart—protective order necessary only if privacy outweighed by discovery need; here balanced in Hart’s favor. | Rental companies—privacy interests require protection and non-disclosure. | No abuse; order affirmed with confidentiality safeguards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 42 Ohio App.3d 227 (Ohio 1988) (inherent privacy right includes avoiding disclosure of personal matters)
- Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1977) (privacy includes non-disclosure of personal information)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard in discovery rulings)
- Cepeda v. Lutheran Hosp., 8th Dist. No. 90031, 2008-Ohio-2348 (Ohio 2008) (balance between privacy and discovery; nonparty information protected)
- J.P. v. DeSanti, 653 F.2d 1080 (6th Cir. 1981) (privacy and disclosure considerations in discovery)
- Cline v. Rogers, 87 F.3d 176 (6th Cir. 1996) (privacy interests; limited discovery of private information)