Smith v. Chen
142 Ohio St. 3d 411
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Henry Smith sued Dr. Ying Chen and OrthoNeuro for alleged medical malpractice causing spinal injuries.
- During discovery, Smith learned of a surveillance video created by defendants and sought its production.
- Defendants argued the video was attorney work product and not discoverable.
- The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas ordered production of the video, prompting an appeal.
- The Tenth District affirmed the order, treating it as final and appealable because of the work-product nature.
- Ongoing proceedings reached the Ohio Supreme Court, which vacated and remanded for lack of a final, appealable order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the discovery order final and appealable under RC 2505.02(B)(4)? | Smith argues the order is final and appealable as a matter of statutory provision. | Chen and OrthoNeuro argue the order is not final and appealable because it is interlocutory. | Not final or appealable; lacks jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Roznowski, 139 Ohio St.3d 299 (2014-Ohio-1984) (defines final, appealable thresholds for orders)
- Legg v. Hallet, 2010 Ohio-6595 (10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-170) (work-product discovery as a potentially final, appealable order)
- Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P. v. Givaudan Flavors Corp., 127 Ohio St.3d 161 (2010-Ohio-4469) (work-product privilege and appealability considerations)
- Calihan v. Fullen, 78 Ohio App.3d 266 (1st Dist.1992) (privilege harms cannot be remedied by post-judgment review)
- Hollis v. Finger, 69 Ohio App.3d 286 (4th Dist.1990) (privilege-based discovery orders as final)
- Delost v. Ohio Edison Co., 2007 Ohio-5680 (7th Dist. Mahoning No. 07-MA-171) (orders compelling discovery of privileged material are final, appealable)