Hotchalk, Inc. v. Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, 548 P.3d 812

HotChalk, LLC, entered a 20-year services contract with Concordia University—Portland to support and share revenue in the university’s educational programs.
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (Synod), a religious body affiliated with Concordia University, facilitated the university’s closure, which led HotChalk to sue Synod and other defendants for breach of contract and fraud.
During discovery, HotChalk sought wide-ranging documents related to the university’s closure; the Synod produced about 180,000 documents but withheld about 1,500, claiming First Amendment protection over internal religious matters.
The Synod moved for a protective order under Oregon Rule of Civil Procedure 36C to prevent disclosure of certain internal, religiously-sensitive documents; the trial court reviewed a subset in camera and granted the protective order.
HotChalk sought a writ of mandamus in the Oregon Supreme Court, arguing the trial court erred in shielding documents and that ordinary appeal would be insufficient remedy.
The Supreme Court considered the scope and propriety of mandamus as a means for reviewing discovery disputes, especially when other remedies may exist.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus is appropriate for review of the discovery order	Ordinary appeal is not adequate since delayed discovery harms prosecution of key claims	Direct appeal is adequate unless relator suffers irretrievable tactical loss; discovery errors reviewable on appeal	Mandamus improper here; ordinary appeal is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
Whether Synod’s internal religious documents are shielded from discovery by First Amendment	No First Amendment privilege applies; regular discovery rules should govern	Producing documents would violate Synod’s First Amendment rights relating to church governance and internal affairs	Court declined to rule on privilege, resolving only jurisdictional/mandamus grounds

State ex rel. Anderson v. Miller, 320 Or 316 (mandamus not appropriate when direct appeal is an adequate remedy for discovery orders)
State ex rel. Automotive Emporium, Inc. v. Murchison, 289 Or 265 (mandamus unavailable for most discovery disputes unless relator suffers irretrievable loss)
Fredrickson v. Starbucks Corp., 363 Or 810 (dismissing writ where questions raised are better resolved through trial and appeal)
Gwin v. Lynn, 344 Or 65 (mandamus appropriate where direct appeal cannot remedy loss of pretrial discovery)