Irvin v. Eichenberger, 2015 Ohio 4400

Appellant Raymond Eichenberger appealed an order in a Franklin County domestic-relations case compelling discovery of any wills or trusts naming him as beneficiary; the magistrate ordered documents submitted for in-camera review.
Appellant, an Ohio-licensed attorney, claimed those documents were protected by attorney–client privilege and argued that compelling their disclosure created a final appealable order.
The trial court denied appellant’s objections to the magistrate’s order, relying in part on a procedural deficiency (no transcript) and on the magistrate’s statement about the hearing attendance.
The Tenth District initially dismissed the appeal for lack of a final appealable order and appellant moved for reconsideration and to certify a conflict to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The court analyzed R.C. 2505.02’s final-order and provisional-remedy provisions and the “bell cannot be unrung” rationale for privileged-discovery appeals.
The court denied reconsideration and certification: it held the issue was not ripe because the court had only ordered in-camera review (no compelled public disclosure yet), and found no actual conflict with other districts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the order compelling production of wills/trusts is a final appealable order	Appellee (Irvin) argued the order was interlocutory and not yet final	Eichenberger argued disclosure of privileged attorney–client material is a provisional remedy that irreparably harms him and is immediately appealable	Court held appeal premature: in-camera review had not compelled public disclosure, so no final appealable order
Whether a compelled discovery of privileged material is inherently appealable under R.C. 2505.02	Appellee implicitly contended that only actual disclosure that affects substantial rights is appealable	Eichenberger relied on precedent that privileged-discovery orders can be final because the harm cannot be undone on later appeal	Court agreed the doctrine has merit in appropriate facts but found it inapplicable here because the documents were only submitted for in-camera review
Whether this decision conflicts with other appellate districts requiring certification to the Ohio Supreme Court	Appellant claimed conflict with Whiteman and Natl. City Bank v. Amedia	Appellant asked certification based on asserted inter-district rule conflict	Court found no actual conflict on the same legal question and denied certification
Whether reconsideration standard satisfied	N/A	Eichenberger asked the court to reconsider its dismissal	Court found no obvious error or overlooked issue and denied reconsideration

Whitlock v. Gilbane Bldg. Co., 66 Ohio St.3d 594 (1993) (sets standards for certifying conflicts among appellate districts)
Natl. City Bank v. Amedia, 118 Ohio App.3d 542 (9th Dist. 1997) (discusses appealability issues in discovery contexts)