State v. Hendon, 2017 Ohio 352

Defendant Eric Hendon was indicted on multiple charges including aggravated murder; pretrial discovery disputes arose over victim R.B.’s records and communications.
Defense moved to compel a non-party victim (R.B.) to produce medical records, electronic devices, account passwords, and lists of providers; trial court entered multiple orders (Dec. 28, 2015; Jan. 4, 2016) directing disclosure and requiring R.B.’s counsel to obtain and provide lists ex parte.
The State issued Crim.R. 17(C) subpoenas to medical providers and to R.B.; R.B. moved to quash but the trial court did not explicitly rule before ordering production and conducting in camera review.
The trial court ultimately disclosed some of R.B.’s medical records to defense counsel and the prosecution (Feb. 1, 2016), and R.B. voluntarily provided lists and devices to the court; she filed timely appeals challenging the orders as violating physician–patient and attorney–client privilege.
The Court of Appeals treated the disclosure orders as final and appealable to the extent they compelled production of privileged materials, but concluded the appeals were moot because the materials had been disclosed (voluntarily or by court order) and the underlying criminal case reached final judgment.

Issue	R.B.’s Argument	Hendon/State Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by ordering disclosure of R.B.’s medical records without giving her an opportunity to object	Trial court used improper procedure and violated physician–patient privilege; R.B. had right to object	Orders were proper discovery/provisional remedy and reviewable; compliance required	Orders compelling production of medical records were final and appealable, but appeals are moot because records were disclosed and the criminal case concluded
Whether discovery orders compelling disclosure of privileged material are final and appealable under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)	Orders deprive R.B. of meaningful post-judgment relief because privilege was lost pre-judgment	Discovery orders are interlocutory unless they meet statutory provisional-remedy criteria	Court agreed such orders compelling privileged material are final and appealable (but outcome moot here)
Whether the trial court could compel R.B. to communicate privileged matters to counsel and then force counsel to disclose them (attorney–client privilege)	Orders effectively required R.B. to waive attorney–client privilege and forced counsel to disclose client communications	Court-appointed procedures required disclosure of certain information to expert/court; compliance required	The orders were final and appealable, but appeal was moot because R.B. voluntarily disclosed the information, constituting waiver

Walters v. Enrichment Ctr. of Wishing Well, Inc., 78 Ohio St.3d 118 (discovery orders are generally interlocutory)
State ex rel. Gaylor, Inc. v. Goodenow, 125 Ohio St.3d 407 (mootness: issues no longer live)
Los Angeles Cty. v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (definition of mootness / ‘no longer live’ issues)
In re Huffer, 47 Ohio St.3d 12 (capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review doctrine)
State v. Brooks, 103 Ohio St.3d 134 (capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review application)
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P. v. Givaudan Flavors Corp., 127 Ohio St.3d 161 (R.C. 2317.02 protects communications during discovery)
Jackson v. Greger, 110 Ohio St.3d 488 (testimonial privilege under R.C. 2317.02 extends to discovery)
State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port. Auth., 121 Ohio St.3d 537 (common-law attorney–client privilege protects dissemination beyond testimonial testimony)