Li v. Olympic Steel, Inc.
2012 Ohio 603
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Li sued Olympic Steel, Inc. in Nov. 2010 alleging discrimination and retaliation after her termination.
- During discovery Li sought to depose Olympic’s corporate representative about documents Li claimed were altered or destroyed.
- Olympic sought a protective order, arguing the deposition would violate attorney-client privilege and the attorney-work product doctrine.
- The trial court denied the protective order; the deposition proceeded despite Olympic’s objections.
- Olympic appealed, claiming the deposition violated privilege/work product; Li contends the documents were not counsel-created and good cause exists to obtain testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the deposition of Olympic’s corporate representative was protected by privilege/work product. | Li contends documents were not counsel-created; good cause exists to depose to uncover alterations. | Olympic asserts the deposition would reveal privileged communications and work product. | No abuse; deposition allowed; good cause shown; privilege not proven to bar testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Manofsky v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 69 Ohio App.3d 663 (9th Dist.1990) (discovery abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Mauzy v. Kelly Servs., Inc., 75 Ohio St.3d 578 (Ohio Supreme Court 1996) (protective order and privilege review standard)
- Smalley v. Friedman, Domiano & Smith, Co. LPA, 8th Dist. No. 83636 (2004-Ohio-2351) (privilege and discovery discretion)
- Abbuhl v. Orange Village, 8th Dist. No. 82203 (2003-Ohio-4662) (privilege and discovery considerations)
- Radovanic v. Cossler, 140 Ohio App.3d 208 (8th Dist.2000) (privilege-related discovery rulings)
- Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (Supreme Court 1981) (attorney-client privilege scope; corporate communications)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (Supreme Court 1947) (work-product doctrine origin)
- Jerome v. A-Best Prods. Co., 8th Dist. Nos. 79139–79142, 2002-Ohio-1824 (8th Dist. Ohio 2002) (good-cause standard for compelled discovery)
- Boone v. Vanliner Ins. Co., 91 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio Supreme Court 2001) (attorney-client privilege defined)
- Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 69 Ohio St.3d 638 (1994) (work-product protection and mental impressions)
- Covington v. The MetroHealth Sys., 150 Ohio App.3d 558 (10th Dist. 2002) (burden to show privilege in discovery)
- Lemley v. Kaiser, 6 Ohio St.3d 258 (1983) (privilege and confidentiality considerations)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (protective order and discovery standards)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard in discovery rulings)