Tucker v. Compudyne Corp., 2014 Ohio 3818

Tucker sued CompuDyne and others for asbestos-related injuries; Tucker died of mesothelioma in 2011; Betty Tucker as executrix amended the complaint to include wrongful death; Tucker testified in 2009–2010 about working on York-Shipley boilers in 1980–1981 and potential asbestos exposure; CompuDyne asserted it acquired York-Shipley liabilities through a 1969 merger but later dissolved; discovery disclosed a 17-page Litigation Analysis by CompuDyne’s national coordinating counsel; trial court ordered disclosure of paragraphs 18(a) and (b) despite privilege; appellate court affirmed as modified; judgment for appellees and costs awarded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the inadvertent disclosure a waiver of privilege?	Tucker argues disclosure was inadvertent and critical information is needed.	CompuDyne contends privilege should protect the document.	Waiver found; fairness required disclosure.
Are paragraphs 18(a)–(b) protected by work-product privilege and to what extent should redaction occur?	Information relevant to corporate history and asbestos use should be disclosed.	Paragraphs are protected work product; no good cause for disclosure.	Factual portions released; redaction of legal impressions in paragraph 18(b) approved; judgment affirmed as modified.

Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port Auth., 121 Ohio St.3d 537 (2010) (attorney work-product privilege and discovery scope considerations)
Ward v. Summa Health Sys., 128 Ohio St.3d 212 (2010) (de novo review of privilege determinations; discovery privilege standard)
Jackson v. Greger, 110 Ohio St.3d 488 (2006) (good cause for work-product discovery; need and availability)
Lemley v. Kaiser, 6 Ohio St.3d 258 (1983) (attorney-client privilege scope and exceptions)
Lanham v. DeWine, 135 Ohio St.3d 191 (2013) (attorney-client privilege and confidentiality expectations)
Dawson v. Bloom-Carroll Local School Dist., 131 Ohio St.3d 10 (2011) (clarifies privilege and disclosure boundaries)