{¶ 2} Terrell Wilkins was adjudicated a delinquent child by the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division. In the disposition of the matter, Wilkins was placed in an independent living facility. Hamilton County had contracted with Hamilton Choices for the delivery and management of social services, including juvenile placements in independent living facilities. Consistent with the contract, Hamilton Choices placed Wilkins with Discovery for Youth's independent living facility in Hamilton, Ohio. Discovery for Youth is licensed by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services as a private noncustodial agency pursuant to O.A.C. 5101:2-5-03(D).
{¶ 3} On March 7, 2003, Wilkins, then 17 years old, assaulted and raped Karen Grantz, who had been tutoring Wilkins in reading at the Butler County YWCA. Grantz was alone with appellant in the basement of the YWCA facility when the attack occurred. Wilkins was arrested and bound over to the Butler County Grand Jury. He was indicted and charged as an adult with felonious assault and rape. Upon pleading no contest to the charges, he was convicted and sentenced accordingly.
{¶ 4} Appellees, Karen Grantz and her husband, John Grantz, subsequently filed suit alleging appellants negligently supervised and placed Wilkins, and that despite knowledge of Wilkins' prior history of violent sexual behavior, failed to warn her or the YWCA of the danger he posed. Appellees alleged that as a consequence, neither Grantz nor the YWCA appreciated the risk that resulted when Grantz was left alone with Wilkins.
{¶ 5} Appellees sought discovery of the appellants' records and documents pertaining to Wilkins. The defendants denied the request, asserting that the records were not relevant to the suit and additionally, that Wilkins' juvenile records were confidential and privileged. Appellees moved to compel disclosure of the records. The trial court granted the motion to compel discovery and appellants have appealed.
{¶ 6} Discovery For Youth's Assignment of Error:
{¶ 7} "The trial court erred in granting plaintiff's motion to compel disclosure."
{¶ 8} Choices' and Hamilton County Defendants' Assignment of Error:
{¶ 9} "The trial court erred when it ordered that confidential juvenile court records and confidential investigation records concerning Wilkins be released to the Grantzes in the prosecution of their civil lawsuit."
{¶ 10} Because appellants' assignments of error raise similar issues, they will be considered together.
{¶ 11} Civ.R. 26 establishes the scope of discovery and states that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action." Parties generally should be granted broad leeway in discovering material that may be useful to them in preparing for litigation. See Stegawski v.Cleveland Anesthesia Group, Inc. (1987),
{¶ 12} It is well-established that the regulation of discovery is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and that this regulation will not be disturbed by a reviewing court absent an abuse of discretion. See Dirksing v. Blue Chip Architectural Products, Inc.
(1994),
{¶ 13} Appellants first argue that the records sought by appellees may only be obtained upon motion before the Juvenile Division of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. They thus conclude that the trial court was without authority to compel discovery of the confidential juvenile records in the present matter. In support of their contention, appellants cite R.C.
{¶ 14} R.C.
{¶ 15} In the criminal context, the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that under certain circumstances, confidential records of a children's services agency must be made available to a trial court for an in camera inspection. In Pennsylvania v. Ritchie (1987),
{¶ 16} The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals has likewise held that the confidential nature of juvenile records is not absolute, and that such records may be discovered in a criminal proceeding, provided the trial court conducts an in camera review of the records to determine 1) the relevancy and necessity of the records and 2) whether admission of the records outweighs statutory confidentiality provisions. State v.Fuson (Aug. 11, 1998), Knox App. No. 97 CA 000023. The Eighth District Court of Appeals has held that confidential juvenile records are discoverable in an administrative action revoking childcare provider certification. Child Care Provider Certification Department v. Harris,
Cuyahoga App. No. 82966,
{¶ 17} Notably, R.C.
{¶ 18} We consequently reject appellants' argument that the only mechanism for obtaining confidential juvenile records lies in a R.C.
{¶ 19} Although the juvenile records at issue are afforded a measure of confidentiality by R.C.
{¶ 20} In the present case, the trial court first concluded that appellees demonstrated good cause for their request. The "good cause" determination does not run to the benefit of the agency, but "[i]nstead, the nondisclosure protection runs to the individuals who are the subject of the file. Therefore, the [agency] may not determine that a record is confidential for the purpose of protecting the [agency] itself." 1991 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 91-003, at 5, citing Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n. v.Campbell,
{¶ 21} We also agree with the trial court's conclusion that "the records in possession of the Defendants concerning [Wilkins'] criminal history * * * are relevant to prove the issues of notice and foreseeability," and that, generally, the admission of the records is not outweighed by statutory confidentiality considerations. The trial court's decision further provides the parties with an opportunity to have any disputed materials reviewed in camera at which time they can argue the relevance of the evidence and factors weighing for or against the statutory confidentiality considerations.
{¶ 22} We consequently conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and overrule the assignments of error.
{¶ 23} Judgment affirmed.
Powell, P.J., and Young, J., concur.