Total Quality Logistics, L.L.C. v. BBI Logistics, L.L.C.
2022 Ohio 1440
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- TQL sued BBI Logistics, LLC and Benjamin Humphries alleging breach of a noncompete, misappropriation of trade secrets, and tortious interference after Humphries joined BBI, a TQL competitor.
- TQL served expedited discovery seeking BBI ownership information and all communications (texts, emails) between Humphries and former TQL employee Brent Bosse.
- Appellants produced multiple privilege logs listing numerous text messages but gave only sender, recipient, date/time, and character count and asserted attorney-client, work-product, and common-interest protections.
- TQL moved to compel, arguing the privilege logs were inadequate and that more responsive messages existed; the trial court found the logs “woefully deficient,” concluded appellants intentionally failed to satisfy Civ.R. 26(B), found waiver, and ordered production of unredacted messages and BBI ownership information.
- On appeal, the Twelfth District reviewed the discovery ruling for abuse of discretion and affirmed: appellants failed to provide a factual basis for privilege or request in camera review or protective orders, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion in compelling disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (TQL) | Defendant's Argument (BBI/Humphries) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion by ordering production of text messages claimed privileged without first doing an in camera review | Privilege log inadequate; TQL entitled to contest privilege and obtain messages | Privilege log established privilege; in camera review was required before ordering disclosure | Court: privilege logs were boilerplate and insufficient; appellants waived privilege by failing to supplement or request in camera review; no abuse of discretion in compelling production |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by ordering disclosure of BBI ownership (allegedly confidential) | Ownership info is not protected; relevant to discovery | Ownership is confidential/business proprietary; court should have protected it or reviewed it in camera | Court: BBI never sought a protective order or in camera review; ordering disclosure was within the court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998) (recognizes attorney-client privilege as protection from discovery)
- United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989) (trial judge may require factual basis before conducting in camera review)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp., 75 Ohio St.3d 254 (1996) (trial court authority to impose discovery sanctions)
- Cargotec, Inc. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 155 Ohio App.3d 653 (2003) (privilege log must provide enough detail to allow contesting the claim)
- Lemley v. Kaiser, 6 Ohio St.3d 258 (1983) (burden to prove privilege rests with party asserting it)
- State ex rel. The V. Cos. v. Marshall, 81 Ohio St.3d 467 (1998) (discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re Teleglobe Communications Corp. v. BCE Inc., 493 F.3d 345 (3d Cir. 2007) (explains joint-client and common-interest doctrines)