Nami v. Nami
2017 Ohio 8330
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Veda C. Nami filed for divorce against Majeed S. Nami (and multiple entities) in June 2015; the trial court later limited jurisdiction to Majeed and two entities.
- Parties exchanged competing requests for production; appellee moved to compel appellee’s August 2015 request and sought a protective order as to appellant’s November 2015 request.
- Magistrate ordered appellee excused from responding to appellant’s requests until appellant produced documents responsive to appellee’s request.
- On October 5, 2016 the trial court ordered appellant to produce documents by October 20, 2016 and postponed appellee’s obligation to produce until compliance was confirmed at a November 4, 2016 hearing.
- Appellant later produced some records (reviewed Feb. 24, 2017) and filed (March 12, 2017) a motion to vacate the October 5, 2016 discovery order; the trial court denied the motion on March 16, 2017.
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding the discovery-order denial was an interlocutory order, not a final, appealable order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Veda) | Defendant's Argument (Majeed) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of appellant's motion to vacate the discovery order is a final, appealable order | The discovery-order denial is final and subject to appellate review | The order is interlocutory and not final; Civ.R. 60(B) cannot be used to vacate an interlocutory order | Held: not final or appealable; appeal dismissed |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) is the proper vehicle to vacate the October 5, 2016 discovery order | N/A (appellee opposed vacation) | Appellant labeled his filing as a Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate | Held: Civ.R. 60(B) applies only to final judgments; the motion was a mislabeled motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order |
| Whether the discovery order qualified as a "provisional remedy" under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) making it appealable | N/A | Appellant implied denial of his discovery was prejudicial and should be immediately appealable | Held: order was not a provisional remedy; appellant did not claim privilege and was only temporarily barred from taking discovery, so R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) does not make it appealable |
| Whether appellant would be denied a meaningful or effective remedy after final judgment | N/A | Appellant argued temporary denial hampered trial preparation and no adequate post-judgment remedy existed | Held: appellant could obtain discovery after complying with the order; any harm was not sufficient to make the order final under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Noble v. Colwell, 44 Ohio St.3d 92 (recognizing final-order requirement for appeals)
- Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co., 27 Ohio St.2d 303 (definition of final order)
- Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17 (two-step final-order analysis under R.C. 2505.02 and Civ.R. 54(B))
- Wisintainer v. Elcen Power Strut Co., 67 Ohio St.3d 352 (trial-court factual determination for Civ.R. 54(B) certification reviewed for competent, credible evidence)
- Colley v. Bazell, 64 Ohio St.2d 243 (denial of Civ.R. 60(B) motion is final and appealable when it seeks relief from final judgment)
- Klein v. Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Co., 13 Ohio St.2d 85 (discovery orders are interlocutory and generally not final)
- Myers v. Toledo, 110 Ohio St.3d 218 (very few discovery orders qualify as provisional remedies)
- Smith v. Chen, 142 Ohio St.3d 411 (party appealing compelled discovery of privileged materials must show immediate appeal is necessary to preserve meaningful remedy)