Tisco Trading USA, Inc. v. Cleveland Metal Exchange, Ltd.
2012 Ohio 493
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Tisco Trading USA, Inc. obtained a June 2011 default judgment against Cleveland Metal Exchange, Ltd. for approximately $115,000 plus interest.
- Tisco served subpoenas duces tecum on First Place Bank and Citizens Bank seeking CME and Horvat financial records after the default judgment.
- Horvat, former owner and principal of CME, opposed the subpoenas on privacy, relevance, and burden grounds; he was not a party to the underlying litigation.
- Horvat moved to quash or modify the subpoenas and for a protective order on July 15, 2011; the trial court denied the motion on July 27, 2011.
- The issue on appeal was whether the post-judgment nonparty discovery sought by Tisco was proper to aid in enforcing the judgment; the appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion and discusses Civ.R. 26, 45, and 69.
- Civ.R. 69 provides that a judgment creditor may obtain discovery from any person to aid enforcement of a money judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying the subpoenas to banks. | Tisco argues discovery of CME and Horvat records is relevant and not privileged. | Horvat argues privacy, irrelevance, and undue burden, and that he is not a party. | No abuse; subpoenas were discoverable and proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foor v. Huntington Natl. Bank, 27 Ohio St.3d 76 (Ohio 1986) (tests for relevancy and discovery; nonparty discovery allowed under Civ.R. 45/69)
- Tschantz v. Ferguson, 97 Ohio App.3d 693 (8th Dist. 1994) (broader relevancy standard under Civ.R. 26(B)(1))
- The V. Cos. v. Marshall, 81 Ohio St.3d 467 (1998) (abuse-of-discretion standard for discovery rulings)