Molnar v. Wong, 2021 Ohio 1402

Background

Erika and Zsolt Molnar retained Margaret W. Wong & Associates to help obtain lawful permanent residence; the representation ended before status was adjusted.
The Molnars alleged the firm committed malpractice and criminal acts; they provided documents from that litigation to USCIS and later obtained U visas and, subsequently, permanent residency.
The I-918 Supplement B forms produced to defendants named the Cleveland Police Department and two officers as certifying law‑enforcement officials.
Defendants subpoenaed the Cleveland Police Department for all materials and investigative records relating to the Molnars; Molnars moved to quash based on statutory/regulatory confidentiality for U‑visa information (8 U.S.C. §1367(a)(2) and 8 C.F.R. §214.14).
The trial court denied the motion to quash in large part, ordering production of certain materials while redacting identifiers; it found the Molnars had put their U‑visa applications at issue and that any chilling effect was muted by their granted status and protective restrictions.
The Eighth District affirmed, holding the confidentiality provisions are not absolute, that privilege must be balanced against relevance and defendants’ need, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 8 U.S.C. §1367(a)(2) / 8 C.F.R. §214.14 bar discovery from the Cleveland PD of U‑visa–related materials	Molnar: statutory/regulatory confidentiality prohibits disclosure by certifying agencies, including local police	Wong: statute lists specific federal agencies; local PDs are not covered and subpoena seeks police records, not USCIS files	Court: confidentiality applies to information relating to a U‑visa beneficiary in PD possession, but the privilege is not absolute and requires balancing
Whether Molnars waived challenge by not appealing the earlier partial denial of protective order	Molnar: preserved protection for unredacted U‑visa files and confidential data	Wong: earlier partial denial was not appealed, so Molnars cannot relitigate discovery rulings	Court: appellants waived challenge as to documents previously ordered produced, but could still challenge new subpoena for other privileged material
Standing to move to quash a subpoena issued to a nonparty (Cleveland PD)	Molnar: had standing to object because subpoena seeks privileged matter concerning them	Wong: only the subpoenaed nonparty has standing to quash	Court: Molnars had standing under Civ.R. 45 and Civ.R. 34 to move to quash on privilege grounds
Whether trial court abused discretion in balancing confidentiality (in terrorem effect) vs. defendants’ need for discovery	Molnar: disclosure would chill victims and undermine U‑visa policy; information should remain confidential	Wong: information is highly probative of the malpractice defense and plaintiffs placed U‑visa applications at issue	Court: no abuse of discretion — Molnars put U‑visa status at issue; chilling effect was muted by their granted status and protective conditions; ordered limited production with redactions and protections

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Brignoni‑Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (discusses vulnerability of aliens and reluctance to report crimes)
Cazorla v. Koch Foods of Mississippi, L.L.C., 838 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2016) (U‑visa confidentiality is not absolute; courts must balance prejudice vs. probative value and public interests)
Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2000) (recognizes fear of deportation can justify protective measures and anonymity)
Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (discusses chilling effect of requiring disclosure of immigration status)
Sure‑Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883 (1984) (employer reported undocumented workers after protected activity; precedent on retaliation risks)
Waldmann v. Waldmann, 48 Ohio St.2d 176 (1976) (burden of establishing a privilege rests with the party seeking it)