Speece v. Speece
2017 Ohio 7950
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Married parties derived most income from EnTech Ltd., a company solely owned by defendant Bryan Speece; divorce proceedings required valuation and forensic accounting of EnTech.
- Plaintiff Marcia moved to appoint an expert to evaluate EnTech and sought broad company documents (financials, client lists, NDAs); Bryan produced some materials but withheld others absent a protective order.
- Magistrate ordered production and procedures for identifying confidential documents and required in-camera submission of NDAs for possible redaction; parties were to be deposed on set dates.
- Bryan’s counsel terminated his deposition after disputes over confidential questions; Bryan then filed two motions for protective orders (Sept. 21 and Oct. 17, 2016), seeking to seal the Sept. 17 deposition and bar inquiry into NDA-covered topics.
- Trial court denied the Sept. 21 motion for protective order (Oct. 25, 2016); the Oct. 17 motion remained pending. Bryan appealed only the denial of the Sept. 21 motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying protective order to prevent disclosure of alleged trade secrets in deposition transcript | Plaintiff argued discovery and in-court procedures allowed necessary access and protective measures per magistrate; no need to seal transcript | Bryan argued deposition contained trade secrets and confidential NDA-covered information; disclosure would expose him/EnTech to liability and violate NDAs | Court affirmed denial: Bryan failed to supply deposition transcript or evidence showing trade-secret status and did not comply with Civ.R. 26(C) meet-and-confer requirement; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether appellant preserved entitlement to protection under R.C. 1333.61 (trade-secret statute) | Plaintiff contended appellant did not meet statutory burden to show trade-secret status | Bryan asserted R.C. protections and requested sealing/in-camera review to prevent dissemination | Court held appellant did not present evidence applying the six-factor Plain Dealer test and did not seek in-camera review with supporting materials, so protections were not warranted |
| Whether failure to attempt to resolve discovery dispute warranted denial under Civ.R. 26(C) | Plaintiff emphasized procedural noncompliance justified denial | Bryan either did not provide required statement of efforts or failed to comply with meet-and-confer duty | Court held failure to provide the mandatory statement was an independent ground to deny the motion |
| Whether magistrate’s prior confidentiality procedures were insufficient/protective obligations unmet | Plaintiff relied on magistrate and trial-court orders providing confidentiality scope and in-camera handling of NDAs | Bryan argued magistrate’s order allowed disclosure to plaintiff’s expert without written confidentiality agreement and insufficiently protected non-parties | Court concluded record showed magistrate/trial-court provided protective mechanisms and Bryan did not demonstrate prejudice or supply evidence warranting further relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Mauzy v. Kelly Servs., Inc., 75 Ohio St.3d 578 (trial-court discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State ex rel. The Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dept. of Ins., 80 Ohio St.3d 513 (six-factor test for trade-secret status under R.C. 1333.61)
- Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden, 85 Ohio St.3d 171 (burden on claimant to identify and demonstrate trade-secret protections)
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (pretrial discovery, including depositions, not public components of a civil trial)