2013 Ohio 5884
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- In 2007 Warino sued Worldwide News Corp. for breach of a lease; default judgment entered against Worldwide for $309,116.25 after Worldwide failed to appear for damages hearing.
- Warino's post-judgment collection efforts were unsuccessful through early 2010.
- In Nov. 2010 Warino obtained an order to examine Joel Kaminsky and Rondee Kamins (alleged Worldwide representatives) and to compel production of documents from them and several related entities.
- Worldwide moved for a protective order in April 2011, arguing the requested discovery was privileged, irrelevant, cumulative, and unduly burdensome.
- The magistrate denied the protective order; the trial court overruled Worldwide’s objections. No transcripts of the magistrate hearing or objection hearing were filed on appeal.
- Worldwide appealed, arguing (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying the protective order and (2) a court may not order non-judgment debtors to appear and produce documents in collection proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion denying Civ.R. 26(C) protective order | Warino sought broad discovery from potential Worldwide representatives and related entities to collect the judgment | Worldwide argued discovery was privileged, confidential, cumulative, available elsewhere, irrelevant, and unduly burdensome | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed (record deficiencies preclude reversal) |
| Whether a court may order non-judgment parties (Kaminsky/Kamins) to appear and produce documents in post-judgment examination | Warino sought to examine non-parties tied to Worldwide to locate assets/collections | Worldwide contended the court improperly ordered non-judgment debtors to produce confidential personal/corporate documents | Court rejected Worldwide’s challenge for lack of standing to assert third parties’ rights; ordering non-parties in collection proceedings not reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Citizens for Open, Responsive, & Accountable Government v. Register, 116 Ohio St.3d 88 (2007) (standards for reviewing discovery-related orders and judicial discretion)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Cmty. Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (definition and limits of abuse of discretion)
- Lemley v. Kaiser, 6 Ohio St.3d 258 (1983) (burden of proving privilege/confidentiality in discovery lies with party asserting it)
- Covington v. The MetroHealth Sys., 150 Ohio App.3d 558 (2002) (discussing burden to show confidentiality and protective order principles)