Karr v. Salido, 2022 Ohio 2879

Karr sued Salido for negligence arising from a September 2018 auto accident; Salido was represented by her insurer.
Karr served discovery asking for insurance policies and the insurer’s entire claim file (investigation, conclusions, etc.).
Salido produced a certified copy of her automobile policy and declarations page but refused to produce the insurer’s claim file.
A magistrate denied Karr’s motion to compel, finding Karr failed to show good cause to overcome work-product protection; Karr objected.
The trial court overruled Karr’s objections, adopted the magistrate’s decision, and held the claim file was protected as work product for a third‑party claimant absent a showing of bad faith.
On appeal the Tenth District dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding the trial court’s denial of the motion to compel was not a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) and Karr failed to show an immediate appeal was necessary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discoverability of insurer’s claim file in third‑party suit	Karr: claim file necessary to prepare trial; alleged partial waiver by Salido	Salido: claim file is protected by work‑product doctrine; not discoverable absent good cause	Court: claim file treated as work product for third‑party claimant and not discoverable without good cause/bad faith showing
Burden to overcome work‑product protection	Karr: magistrate and trial court misapplied law and failed to consider O.A.C. authority; argued waiver	Salido: Karr did not meet burden to show bad faith or other good cause to compel production	Court: Karr did not demonstrate the requisite good cause/bad faith to overcome work‑product protection
Procedural correctness of magistrate/trial court rulings	Karr: magistrate misunderstood or misapplied controlling precedent; objected generally	Salido: magistrate’s ruling was correct and objections were not sufficiently specific	Court: trial court did not err as to the discovery ruling on the record presented
Finality/appealability of order denying motion to compel	Karr: framed the order as appealable under R.C. 2505.02 and cited administrative rule authority	Salido: denial of discovery is interlocutory and not a final appealable order	Court: denial of discovery here is not a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4); appeal dismissed

State v. Glenn, 165 Ohio St.3d 432 (Ohio 2021) (framework for appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory discovery orders and application of R.C. 2505.02)
Smith v. Chen, 142 Ohio St.3d 411 (Ohio 2015) (appellant bears burden to establish jurisdiction for interlocutory appeal)
State ex rel. Neil v. French, 153 Ohio St.3d 271 (Ohio 2018) (pro se litigants held to same procedural standards as counseled litigants)