Mezatasta v. Ent. Hill Farm
2016 Ohio 3371
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Kasandra Mezatasta sued after a 2011 auto accident; defendants hired neurologist Dr. Gerald Steiman to perform an independent medical exam (IME).
- Mezatasta subpoenaed Steiman for deposition and requested his personal tax returns and 1099s (2009–2014) to probe bias/pecuniary interest.
- Steiman initially objected, provided limited volunteered information about IMEs performed and income from IMEs, and refused to produce full tax returns; defense counsel (on his request) filed motions to quash/protect.
- Trial court denied the motion to quash (June 4, 2015) and denied plaintiff’s contempt motion; Steiman then withdrew as a defense expert and filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the denial (June 12, 2015), which the trial court denied (June 24, 2015).
- On appeal, the Sixth District held the June 4 order compelling tax-return production was a final, appealable order (discovery of tax returns is a provisional remedy) and reviewed both the motion-to-quash and 60(B) rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether order denying motion to quash subpoena for non-party expert’s tax returns was properly enforced | Mezatasta: subpoena timely; tax records relevant to bias and pecuniary interest; Steiman failed to timely object | Steiman: tax returns are private, not relevant to IME bias, overbroad and unduly intrusive; procedural defects in how objections/motion were made | Court: June 4 order is final and appealable; Steiman’s procedural failures under Civ.R.45(C) (late objections, no required affidavit/cert) meant his first assignment of error fails; affirmed denial of quash as to procedure |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Steiman’s Civ.R.60(B) motion after he withdrew as an expert | Steiman: withdrawal is a changed circumstance making tax returns irrelevant; timely filed 60(B)(5); entitlement to relief because he will no longer testify | Mezatasta: Steiman was in contempt and not entitled to relief; producing returns was necessary earlier for cross-examining bias | Court: trial court abused discretion in denying 60(B) — withdrawal made the tax returns irrelevant and 60(B)(5) relief was warranted; reversed the June 24 order and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Fisher v. Cleveland, 845 N.E.2d 500 (Ohio 2006) (tax returns contain intimate private details; expectation of privacy)
- Stinchcomb v. Mammone, 849 N.E.2d 54 (Ohio Ct. App.) (refusal to compel an expert’s tax/1099 information where sufficient disclosure on bias was provided)
- Dispatch Printing Co. v. Recovery Ltd. Partnership, 849 N.E.2d 297 (Ohio Ct. App.) (orders compelling discovery of privileged/protected matter may be final and appealable)
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 351 N.E.2d 113 (Ohio 1976) (standards for relief under Civ.R. 60(B))
- Block Communications v. Pounds, 34 N.E.3d 984 (Ohio Ct. App.) (trial courts have broad discretion over discovery decisions)