Nageotte v. Boston Mills Brandywine Ski Resort
2012 Ohio 6102
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Nageotte injured on Brandywine's tramway tow-rope on Jan 15, 2010, leading to serious injuries.
- Ms. Nageotte filed a multi-count complaint on Jan 10, 2012 naming Brandywine entities, Conde, and others.
- Plaintiff amended to consolidate ski-resort defendants to Brandywine Ski Resort, Inc.; case number CV 2012-01-0175.
- Defendants refused to produce Conde's witness statements asserting attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine; trial court compelled production.
- Brandywine and Conde appealed the attorney-client privilege ruling (work-product issue not appealed); this court affirmed the privilege ruling.
- Court reviewed privilege de novo and addressed whether the statements were confidential and protected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Conde witness statement protected by the attorney-client privilege? | Nageotte seeks discovery; privilege should shield statements. | Statements were for defense and protected under privilege. | No; privilege not established; statements not shown confidential. |
| Did Brandywine fail to prove the existence of confidentiality required for the privilege? | Burden on proving privilege lies with the proponent. | Statements not clearly confidential; record insufficient. | Trial court did not err; privilege not proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port. Auth., 121 Ohio St.3d 537 (2009-Ohio-1767) (common-law privilege scope and confidentiality considerations)
- Grace v. Mastruserio, 182 Ohio App.3d 243 (2007-Ohio-3942) (elements of the attorney-client privilege; confidentiality requirement)
- Perfection Corp. v. Travelers Cos. & Sur., 153 Ohio App.3d 28 (2003-Ohio-2750) (burden to prove privilege; use of confidential communications)