J&C Marketing, L.L.C. v. McGinty
2013 Ohio 4805
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant McGinty, as Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, appeals a discovery order in a declaratory judgment action.
- Plaintiff J&C Marketing, L.L.C. sought to determine whether internet sweepstakes cafés fall under Ohio gambling laws.
- Prosecutor issued a cease-and-desist letter alleging violations of R.C. 2915.02, 2915.03, and 2915.04.
- The declaratory judgment action targets the application of gambling laws to sweepstakes cafés and seeks injunctive relief.
- The trial court ordered production of police reports, certain emails, and certain interrogatories; issues concern privilege and discovery scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of law enforcement investigatory privilege | J&C seeks investigatory materials for civil action | Privilege protects ongoing investigations | Henneman balancing applied; some materials produced, some protected |
| Attorney work-product privilege applicability | Discovery of material prepared in anticipation of litigation is allowed | Work product protected unless good cause shown | Some items produced only; others protected under work-product |
| Deliberative-process privilege applicability | Internal deliberations should be discoverable | Deliberative process may shield internal opinions | Deliberative privilege largely redundant; not central; limited guidance given |
| Interrogatories regarding investigatory materials | Seeking answers to inform civil action | Many questions intrude on investigation | Some interrogatories affirmed; others reversed or limited consistent with privileges |
Key Cases Cited
- Henneman v. Toledo, 35 Ohio St.3d 241 (Ohio 1988) (confidential investigative records may be discovered if balanced by public interest)
- State ex rel. Multimedia, Inc. v. Whalen, 48 Ohio St.3d 41 (Ohio 1990) (adopts Frankenhauser-style balancing in discovery of ongoing investigations)
- Ward v. Summa Health Sys., 128 Ohio St.3d 212 (Ohio 2010) (privilege determinations reviewed de novo; balancing governs disclosure)
- Squire, Sanders & Dempsey v. Givaudan Flavors Corp., 127 Ohio St.3d 161 (Ohio 2010) (attorney work-product standard; good cause essential for disclosure)
- State ex rel. Dann v. Taft, 109 Ohio St.3d 364 (Ohio 2006) (deliberative-process privilege described and limited applicability noted)
- Sutton v. Stevens Painton Corp., 192 Ohio App.3d 68 (Ohio App. 2011) (limits on disclosure; applies to work-product contexts)