United States Specialty Sports Assn., Inc. v. Majni
2022 Ohio 3035
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- USSSA sued Clifford Majni and related One Nation entities alleging breach of a non‑compete and misappropriation of confidential information after USSSA acquired Global Sports League (GSL), where Majni had been an executive.
- One Nation engaged nonparty Virteom to build a website/database; USSSA served Civ.R. 45 subpoena on Virteom and Civ.R. 33/34 discovery on One Nation seeking the site, software, database content, and related materials.
- The trial court entered a stipulated Protective Order allowing parties to designate discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL — SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” including protocols for electronically stored information and an option for further restriction to designated in‑house counsel for highly sensitive materials.
- The trial court ordered (April 20 and August 19, 2021) production and access to One Nation’s website/database and compelled Virteom’s response, explicitly making those productions subject to the Protective Order; One Nation’s request to depose USSSA’s IT head was denied.
- One Nation and Virteom appealed: they argued the court erred in compelling production of proprietary software/content/trade secrets despite claimed inadequate protection, and contested denial of the IT deposition; the appellate court affirmed the production orders and dismissed the challenge to the deposition order for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the August 19 orders compelling production of One Nation/Virteom materials were final, appealable orders | Orders compelling privileged/trade‑secret information are final and appealable under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) (Burnham) | Protective order provides adequate safeguards so orders are not final or appealable | Court: Orders are final and appealable; adequacy of protections goes to merits, not appealability (appeal allowed) |
| Whether the Protective Order and trial court properly allowed production of One Nation/Virteom software, database, and alleged trade secrets | USSSA: Protective Order covers discovery responses and ESI; court may compel production under protective terms | One Nation/Virteom: Order forces disclosure of proprietary software/trade secrets not adequately protected; Virteom not a party to the Protective Order | Court: No abuse of discretion. Protective Order covers “documents” and ESI; trial court properly extended the order to Virteom’s production and permitted further restriction for highly sensitive items |
| Whether denial of One Nation’s motion to compel deposition of USSSA’s IT director is appealable | (Not argued as plaintiff) USSSA: denial is interlocutory and not a final order | One Nation: trial court erred in denying deposition and in concomitant scheduling of production | Court: No jurisdiction to review — denial of motion to compel discovery is not a final, appealable order here; assignment dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic, 89 N.E.3d 536 (Ohio 2016) (order compelling privileged information is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)).
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (defines abuse of discretion as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable).
- Dispatch Printing Co. v. Recovery L.P., 849 N.E.2d 297 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) (discusses adequacy of protective orders in appealability analysis; distinguished on facts).
- Gangale v. Coyne, 183 N.E.3d 1245 (Ohio 2022) (a Civ.R. 45 subpoena to a nonparty is subject to discovery scope under Civ.R. 26).
- Lima Mem. Hosp. v. Almudallal, 69 N.E.3d 204 (Ohio 2016) (no abuse of discretion where trial court ordered production of trade secrets under an adequate protective order).
- Hoag v. Ent. Holdings, 168 N.E.3d 142 (Ohio 2021) (interlocutory denial of motion to compel discovery is not a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02).