Scott Process Sys., Inc. v. Mitchell, 2012 Ohio 5971

SPSI sued Scott Mitchell and Mitchell Piping, LLC in 2010 for violation of a non‑compete and related tort claims; settlement in 2011 included a non‑compete.
Non‑party Ronald Genovese, former SPSI employee, was subpoenaed to produce electronic devices and to depose; SPSI sought imaging of his computers, hard drives, and cell phones.
Trial court granted SPSI’s October 12, 2011 motion to compel production of Genovese’s electronic devices; SPSI later withdrew that motion as Genovese began voluntary responses.
SPSI amended notices to depose Genovese with an Exhibit A requesting imaging of devices; Genovese moved to quash and for protective order, SPSI moved to compel.
January 18, 2012 order denied the quash and protective order and granted the motion to compel forensic imaging; Genovese appealed, challenging the order as an abuse of discretion.
Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the January 18, 2012 order failed to apply Bennett v. Martin protections and did not balance privacy with discovery need.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ordering forensic imaging without showing paper production insufficiency was error.	SPSI argues imaging was necessary due to noncompliance and scope of discovery.	Genovese contends no showing that paper production was inadequate and imaging was improper.	Reversed; order abused discretion.
Whether Bennett balancing factors were required before imaging.	SPSI relies on Bennett to justify imaging given discovery background.	Genovese argues no noncompliance finding and privacy concerns suffice to block imaging.	Reversed; factors not properly applied.
Whether protective safeguards were required for imaging.	SPSI seeks protective order to limit disclosure and privilege review.	Genovese asserts lack of protective measures.	Reversed; protective protocol required.
Whether the discovery order was unduly burdensome and broad.	SPSI asserts breadth was justified by relevance to claims.	Genovese contends the subpoenas are overly burdensome and intrusive.	Moot; issues tied to other errors.
Whether the time and cost burdens of compliance were properly allocated.	SPSI argues reasonable timing and cost allocation; Genovese contends excessive burden.	Genovese emphasizes disruption and cost-shifting.	Moot; issues tied to other errors.

Bennett v. Martin, 186 Ohio App.3d 412 (10th Dist. 2009) (two-part Bennett framework for forensic imaging balancing privacy and discovery need)
Northeast Professional Home Care, Inc. v. Advantage Home Health Services, Inc., 188 Ohio App.3d 704 (5th Dist. 2010) (confidential material discovery can be final/provisional; avoids general rule against finality)
John B. v. Goetz, 531 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2008) (balance privacy concerns against utility of imaging)