Phillips v. Vesuvius USA Corp.
2020 Ohio 3285
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Phillips worked ~40 years for Vesuvius and sued after termination, alleging age discrimination and retaliation.
- In discovery Phillips requested personnel files for seven employees (RFP No. 10), including six European citizens.
- Vesuvius objected on relevance, custody/control, and asserted EU data‑protection laws (GDPR) precluded production; it offered a protective order but sought indemnification.
- Trial court granted Phillips’s motion to compel production and ordered responses; Vesuvius appealed claiming the order was final and that GDPR barred disclosure.
- The appellate court held the order was a final appealable determination as to the claimed privilege/confidentiality, affirmed the grant of the motion to compel, but remanded for an in camera review and redaction of confidential/irrelevant material.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court's order was a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) | Phillips: appellants failed to make a colorable showing of privilege under GDPR, so the order is not a provisional remedy warranting immediate appeal | Vesuvius: the order compels production of allegedly protected GDPR material, so it determines a provisional remedy and is immediately appealable | Court: order is final/appealable as to the privilege/confidentiality issue because appellants made a colorable claim and immediate review is the only effective remedy |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in compelling production of European personnel files given GDPR, relevance, and alternative Hague procedures | Phillips: files are relevant to age discrimination/retaliation, request is narrow (seven employees), protective order accepted; Hague procedures are not a practical alternative | Vesuvius: production would violate GDPR and national laws, is overbroad/irrelevant, risks fines and enforcement; Hague Convention is the proper channel | Court: applying Aerospatiale/Richmark factors, the balance favors disclosure (importance, specificity, lack of viable alternative, U.S. interests). Trial court did not abuse discretion, but must perform in camera review and redact undiscoverable confidential/irrelevant material |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic, [citation="151 Ohio St.3d 356"] (2016) (colorable claim of privilege can make discovery order appealable)
- Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States District Court, [citation="482 U.S. 522"] (1987) (foreign disclosure prohibitions do not automatically bar U.S. courts from ordering discovery; court should balance factors)
- Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, [citation="959 F.2d 1468"] (9th Cir.) (adopting Restatement balancing factors for foreign‑law conflicts in discovery)
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski, [citation="139 Ohio St.3d 299"] (2014) (finality requirements for appellate jurisdiction)
- Walters v. Enrichment Center of Wishing Well, Inc., [citation="78 Ohio St.3d 118"] (1997) (discovery orders ordinarily interlocutory)
- Tracy v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., [citation="58 Ohio St.3d 147"] (1991) (discovery‑abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- Medical Mutual of Ohio v. Schlotterer, [citation="122 Ohio St.3d 181"] (2009) (privilege/confidentiality is a legal question reviewed de novo)