State v. Glenn (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 3369

Samuel Glenn, a teacher, was indicted for sexual battery; his defense filed an alibi notice and a list of alibi witnesses.
The prosecution moved to compel written witness statements or reports summarizing the defense witnesses’ expected testimony—particularly from an ex‑girlfriend alibi witness who spoke to defense counsel but refused the state.
The trial court ordered defense counsel to provide written summaries of statements made to counsel and a defense investigator about the alibi, excluding "internal communication of impressions, conclusions, strategy, or opinions," incriminating statements, and impeachment‑only material; noncompliance would bar the witnesses.
Glenn appealed the discovery order as immediately appealable, arguing it compelled disclosure of attorney work product and caused irreparable prejudice; the Second District dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The Ohio Supreme Court agreed the order is a provisional remedy and that Glenn made a colorable work‑product claim, but held he failed to show he would be denied a meaningful or effective remedy by an appeal after final judgment and affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s order compelling defense counsel to create and disclose written summaries of alibi‑witness statements is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)	Glenn: order compels disclosure of attorney work product; forced disclosure (and possible counsel impeachment) is irreparable and cannot be remedied after final judgment, so immediate appeal is required	State: any harm is remediable on appeal after final judgment (e.g., reversal/new trial, exclusion); order may be tailored to avoid revealing counsel’s mental impressions, so interlocutory review is not warranted	The court: order is a provisional remedy and Glenn has a colorable work‑product claim, but he did not prove that an appeal after final judgment would be ineffective; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (no immediate appeal)

Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) (establishes attorney work‑product doctrine; protection for interview memoranda and mental impressions)
Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981) (work product protection for attorney mental impressions; care in requiring interview summaries)
United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (1975) (attorney work product applies in criminal cases; protection not absolute)
Smith v. Chen, 142 Ohio St.3d 411 (2015) (Ohio: discovery order compelling disclosure of work product is a provisional remedy)
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P. v. Givaudan Flavors Corp., 127 Ohio St.3d 161 (2010) (discussion of limits on work‑product disclosure)
Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic, 151 Ohio St.3d 356 (2016) (impossibility of later relief if protected materials already disclosed supports interlocutory review in some contexts)