Pagano v. Heck
2017 Ohio 8564
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Pagano (Any Excuse for a Party) and Heck formed a partnership to operate SloMo Booths, LLC, which sold slow-motion photo booths. Pagano sued for an accounting and damages, alleging Heck failed to provide required accounting reports; Heck counterclaimed that Pagano breached duties under the partnership.
- The parties entered an agreed protective/confidentiality order that included a stipulation that Pagano should not obtain business records for an accounting before a court first determines entitlement.
- Multiple discovery disputes followed; the trial court repeatedly ordered Heck to produce outstanding discovery and a "full accounting," and later modified one order to remove the phrase "full accounting."
- On October 14, 2016 the trial court again ordered production of all outstanding discovery, including a full accounting, and warned of sanctions for noncompliance. Heck appealed that discovery order.
- The Ninth District Court of Appeals treated the discovery order as a final, appealable order because it effectively resolved the central controversy (whether Pagano was entitled to an accounting) and would prevent meaningful relief on appeal if enforced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pagano) | Defendant's Argument (Heck) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the October 14, 2016 discovery order is a final, appealable order | The order enforces discovery and should be reviewed on appeal | The order was interlocutory and not immediately appealable | The court held the order is final and appealable under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) because it effectively determined the primary controversy (entitlement to an accounting) |
| Whether the court erred by compelling production of confidential/privileged materials and a "full accounting" before adjudicating entitlement | Pagano argued Heck had no basis to withhold or seek in camera review and failed to preserve privilege arguments | Heck argued the order forced disclosure of confidential/privileged business records contrary to the parties' protective stipulation and due process; an in camera review was required first | The court held the trial court erred: it should have conducted in camera review (or otherwise protected privileged/confidential materials) before compelling production; first and second assignments of error sustained |
| Whether Heck must respond to Pagano's second set of interrogatories (local rule challenge) | Pagano argued discovery responses required | Heck argued the second interrogatories violated local rule and should be struck | Moot — the appellate court declined to decide because its disposition on privileged/confidential production rendered the issue moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitaker-Merrell Co. v. Geupel Constr. Co., Inc., 29 Ohio St.2d 184 (Ohio 1972) (appellate courts must raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte)