Sutton v. Stevens Painton Corp.
951 N.E.2d 91
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Thompson Hine represented Terex in a products/negligence action arising from Sutton’s workplace accident.
- Plaintiffs Suttons allege invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on Shadow Investigations’ activities.
- Shadow Investigations conducted surveillance February–May 2007; materials disclosed in discovery.
- Plaintiffs sought Thompson Hine privilege-log emails; Thompson Hine refused certain emails as privileged/work product.
- Trial court conducted in-camera review, ordered some disclosure with redactions and some protection.
- Thompson Hine appeals, arguing the court erred in ordering disclosure of privileged materials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion ordering privilege disclosures | Suttons contend privilege protection was improperly pierced | Thompson Hine argues materials are privileged/work product and properly protected | Yes; court erred in ordering attorney-client privilege disclosures |
| Whether crime-fraud exception applies to disclosures | Plaintiffs claim privilege should yield due to alleged concealment | Defense contends no crime-fraud linkage; exception not satisfied | No; crime-fraud exception not established |
| Whether good-cause standard justified disclosure of work product | Work product necessary to prove claims; compelling need | Work product should be protected absent good cause | Yes; court did not abuse in requiring disclosure of some work-product materials |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. Summa Health Sys., 128 Ohio St.3d 212 (2010 Ohio) (discovery privilege reviewed de novo; good-cause matters discretionary)
- Roe v. Planned Parenthood S.W. Ohio Region, 122 Ohio St.3d 399 (2009 Ohio) (privilege and discovery standards for reproductive health context)
- Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P. v. Givaudan Flavors Corp., 127 Ohio St.3d 161 (2010 Ohio) (excising or limiting privilege; work product distinctions clarified)
- Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 69 Ohio St.3d 638 (1994 Ohio) (attorney-client privilege basics; exceptions discussion)
- Boone v. Vanliner Ins. Co., 91 Ohio St.3d 209 (2001 Ohio) (privilege scope and waiver considerations)
- Perfection Corp. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur., 153 Ohio App.3d 28 (2003 Ohio) (in-camera review and discovery standards)