Pinnix v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 2012 Ohio 3263

Pinnix sued Marc’s for personal injury from a cart collision in a Marc’s store in August 2009.
Marc’s sought Pinnix’s medical records from 2006 to present via an unrestricted authorization including sensitive categories.
Pinnix refused to sign, arguing the request was overly broad and included privileged material.
The trial court granted Marc’s motion to compel production of all records and denied an in camera inspection request.
Pinnix appealed; the appellate court remanded for an in camera review of the records with a privilege log.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by compelling production of all medical records.	Pinnix; records include privileged material not causally related.	Marc’s; broad records are relevant for causally related injuries.	Yes; error in compelling broad production.
Whether an in camera inspection should have been conducted to identify privileged records.	In camera review necessary to segregate privileged records.	Not necessary if records are causally related.	Yes; remand for in camera review.
Whether Pinnix should sign broad medical releases without a protective order.	Protected records should be shielded; request too broad.	Requests necessary for discovery without protective order.	Remanded for in camera and privilege log; full releases not affirmed.

State v. Geis, 2 Ohio App.3d 258 (Ohio App.3d 1981) (support for in camera relevance and limiting disclosure)
Cargile v. Barrow, 182 Ohio App.3d 55 (1st Dist. 2009) (in camera review warranted when records may be related)
Mason v. Booker, 185 Ohio App.3d 19 (10th Dist. 2009) (need for privilege considerations in discovery)
Ward v. Summa Health Sys., 128 Ohio St.3d 212 (2010-Ohio-6275) (privilege issues reviewed de novo in discovery)
Cobb v. Shipman, 11th Dist. No. 2011–T–0049, 2012-Ohio-1676 () (final appealable order on discovery of privileged material)