Owens v. ACS Hotels, L.L.C.
2016 Ohio 5506
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Darlene Owens sued ACS Hotels, LLC after allegedly contracting Legionella from the hotel pool/spa following a March 2014 stay.
- ACS answered with over 20 affirmative defenses. Owens served interrogatories and requests for production seeking facts, witnesses, and documents supporting each affirmative defense.
- ACS objected, claiming the requests sought attorney work product and privileged material, and moved for a protective order. Owens moved to compel.
- The trial court ruled some affirmative defenses required factual disclosure (to avoid trial by ambush) and ordered ACS to answer those interrogatories without revealing attorney work product; it protected others deemed procedural or technical.
- ACS appealed the partial denial of its protective order and the partial grant of Owens’s motion to compel. The appeals court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interrogatories seeking “each and every fact” supporting ACS’s affirmative defenses improperly seek attorney work product | Owens: Interrogatories seek factual support to avoid ambush; discoverable. | ACS: Request implicates counsel’s mental impressions and intangible work product; therefore protected. | Court: ACS can answer many interrogatories by stating factual bases without revealing mental impressions; no abuse of discretion in ordering answers. |
| Whether requests for production for documents supporting defenses are protected work product | Owens: Documents supporting defenses are discoverable; defendant must identify withheld items if claiming privilege. | ACS: Blanket objection claiming work-product protection for requested documents. | Court: ACS forfeited work-product protection for documents by failing to identify/list withheld items; trial court correctly compelled production in part. |
| Standard of review for discovery privilege rulings | Owens: N/A | ACS: N/A (both parties accept appellate standard) | Court: Abuse of discretion is the standard; no abuse found. |
| Application of Civ.R. 26(B)(3) to intangible work product | Owens: Intangible factual information may be disclosed if not mental impressions. | ACS: Rule protects intangible attorney work product; interrogatories request same. | Court: Civ.R.26(B)(3) covers tangible and intangible work product, but defendants must show good cause or identify withheld items; here ACS failed to do so for documents and could answer interrogatories without divulging mental impressions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P. v. Givaudan Flavors Corp., 127 Ohio St.3d 161 (discusses work-product doctrine and extension to intangible work product)
- DeCuzzi v. Westlake, 191 Ohio App.3d 816 (Eighth Dist.) (interrogatories seeking defense strategy and facts can implicate opinion work product)
- McPherson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 146 Ohio App.3d 441 (party forfeits work-product protection by failing to identify withheld documents)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (defines appellate abuse-of-discretion standard)