Kaplan v. Tuennerman-Kaplan
2012 Ohio 303
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Kaplan (husband) filed for divorce against Laura in Pennsylvania.
- Kaplan sought information on Laura's interest in TLJ Limited; not all requested info was provided.
- A rogatory letter was issued by Fayette County to compel production and deposition in Ohio.
- Wayne County Court of Common Pleas issued a subpoena duces tecum based on the rogatory letter.
- Tuennerman opposed and moved to quash; the court granted the motion to quash on February 28, 2011.
- Kaplan appeals, challenging the subpoena quash order and asserting discovery was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to deny foreign discovery | Kaplan argues Ohio can compel under RC 2319.09 and reject foreign denial. | Tuennerman argues comity and local discretion permit quash. | Court held authority to quash under Lampe; did not defer to foreign order. |
| Comity | Kaplan contends comity requires enforcement of foreign discovery. | Tuennerman asserts no violation of comity; rogatory letter is not a decision. | No comity violation; trial court acted within discretion. |
| Undue burden under Civ.R. 45 | Kaplan asserts relevance and lack of burden; needs documents. | Tuennerman shows burden and limits; some documents not necessary or unduly burdensome. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; Kaplan failed to show substantial need or overcome burden. |
| Relevance and scope of discovery | Kaplan argues broader discovery needed to prove Wife's TLJ interest. | Tuennerman asserts token interest and adequate disclosure; many items irrelevant or burdensome. | Discovery narrowed; no abuse of discretion in limiting scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fischer Brewing Co. v. Flax, 138 Ohio App.3d 92 (8th Dist.2000) (trial court cannot automatically quash a foreign subpoena; varies by situation)
- Bobala v. Bobala, 68 Ohio App.3d 63 (7th Dist.1940) (comity and respect for other courts' decisions)