Heimberger v. Heimberger, 2020 Ohio 3853

Debra Heimberger sued her brother Michael and sister‑in‑law Laura alleging tortious conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress tied to alleged interference with her inheritance expectations.
Michael and Laura answered and asserted counterclaims accusing Debra of frivolous litigation and seeking vexatious‑litigator status.
Defendants served interrogatories and requests for production; they moved to compel after Debra provided incomplete/evasive answers and produced no documents.
Debra moved for a protective order, claiming mediator‑communication privilege (re a 2015 mediation proposal) and physician/counselor‑patient privilege for psychological/medical records without temporal limits.
The trial court granted the motions to compel and denied the protective order, holding the mediation privilege did not apply on the record and that medical/psychological records are discoverable to the extent they relate causally or historically to the injuries alleged. Debra appealed and the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mediator‑communication privilege	Debra: communications with mediator (2015) are privileged and bar discovery.	Michael/Laura: disputed applicability and noted the discovery sought was not the 2015 mediation proposal.	Privilege not shown; burden on proponent. No mediator privilege bars the discovery at issue.
Physician/counselor‑patient privilege; temporal scope	Debra: medical/psych records are privileged and court should limit requests by time parameters.	Michael/Laura: records and provider identities relevant and discoverable to extent they relate causally/historically to claims; names of providers are not privileged.	Records and provider identities discoverable to the extent they relate causally/historically to alleged injuries; no separate time‑limit needed because requests were sufficiently particular.

Ward v. Summa Health Sys., 943 N.E.2d 514 (Ohio 2010) (standard of review: discovery generally abuse of discretion; privilege issues reviewed de novo)
State v. Tench, 123 N.E.3d 955 (Ohio 2018) (party asserting privilege bears the burden to prove it applies)
Med. Mut. of Ohio v. Schlotterer, 909 N.E.2d 1237 (Ohio 2009) (medical records are generally privileged)
Leopold v. Ace Doran Hauling & Rigging Co., 994 N.E.2d 431 (Ohio 2013) (physician may be compelled to testify or produce records that relate causally or historically to injuries in a civil action)
Weis v. Weis, 72 N.E.2d 245 (Ohio 1947) (physician‑patient privilege strictly construed)
Jenkins v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 173 N.E.2d 122 (Ohio 1961) (the fact that a physician was consulted is not a protected communication)
Turk v. Oiler, 732 F.Supp.2d 758 (E.D. Ohio 2010) (names of health‑care providers are not protected by the physician‑patient privilege)