Wagner v. Dennis , 2012 Ohio 2485 ( 2012 )

[Cite as Wagner v. Dennis, 2012-Ohio-2485.]
COURT OF APPEALS
ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JENNIFER WAGNER JUDGES:
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellant Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs-
Case No. 11-COA-050
ADAM DENNIS
Defendant-Appellee OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Ashland County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division Case No.
2010 4173
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 4, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee
DANIEL F. MAYNARD KIMREY D. ELZEER
Maynard & Associates Wickens, Herzer, Panza,
Attorneys at Law L.L.C. Cook & Batista Co.
246 West Liberty St. 35765 Chester Road
Medina, Ohio 44256 Avon, Ohio 44011-1262
Guardian Ad Litem
HOWARD GLICK
23 West Main Street
Ashland, Ohio 44805
Ashland County, Case No. 11-COA-050 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Jennifer Wagner (“Mother”) appeals the November 14,
2011 Judgment Entry entered by the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, which ordered her to answer certain questions posed to her during a discovery
deposition. Defendant-appellee is Adam Dennis (“Father”).
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} Mother and Father are the biological parents of KMW (dob 7/23/09). In the
fall of 2009, Father filed a paternity action in the Medina County Court of Common
Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. The action was dismissed on September 29, 2010,
for lack of jurisdiction. On November 4, 2010, Mother filed a Complaint to Establish
Original Allocation of Paternal Rights and Responsibilities in the Ashland County Court
of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division.
{¶3} On April 1, 2011, Father filed a motion to obtain Mother’s medical and
psychological records. Mother filed a motion in opposition thereto. Via Magistrate’s
Order filed April 21, 2011, the magistrate ordered Mother to execute all necessary
releases to permit Father to access her medical and psychological records. Mother filed
a motion to set aside the magistrate’s order, which the trial court overruled. The trial
court scheduled the final hearing on Mother’s complaint for August 8, 2011.1
{¶4} Kimrey Elzeer, counsel for Father, deposed Mother on May 16, 2011.
Mother objected to a number of the questions posed to her at the deposition. Father
propounded interrogatories and document requests upon Mother on June 13, 2011.
1
The hearing was originally scheduled for May 23, 2011, was rescheduled for August 2,
2011, and rescheduled again for August 8, 2011.
Ashland County, Case No. 11-COA-050 3
After Mother failed to answer the interrogatories and produce the requested documents,
Father filed a motion to compel discovery on July 29, 2011. On the same day, Father
also filed a motion to compel deposition testimony, asking the trial court to order Mother
to respond to seven questions she refused to answer during her deposition, to wit:
{¶5} 1. Q. Have you ever used illegal drugs?
{¶6} 2. Q. Why didn’t you see Dr. Korricky (Koricke)?
{¶7} 3. Q. How is it that you selected Dr. Esson to conduct your assessment?
{¶8} 4. Q. Did you make any attempts to go to the bank to get your records
from 2010?
{¶9} 5. Q. What else do you plan to use as evidence at trial in support of your
claim?
{¶10} 6. Q. And what else do you have?
{¶11} 7. Q. And what do you have on the voice recorder?
{¶12} The magistrate issued an order on August 2, 2011, instructing Mother to
answer all seven of the questions at issue. Mother filed a motion to stay and to set
aside the August 2, 2011 order, which the magistrate denied via order filed August 4,
2011. On August 8, 2011, the day of the final hearing, Mother filed a motion with the
trial court to set aside the magistrate’s August 4, 2011 order denying her motion to stay
and to set aside the magistrate’s August 2, 2011 order. The final hearing commenced
as scheduled. As a preliminary matter, Father stated the magistrate had not ruled on
his July 29, 2011 motion to compel discvoery. According to Father, the magistrate
indicated she would rule on the motion, if needed, as the trial progressed. Mother
Ashland County, Case No. 11-COA-050 4
proceeded with her case-in-chief. The magistrate continued the matter until November
21, and 22, 2011, for further hearing to complete the presentation of evidence.
{¶13} The trial court conducted a hearing on Mother’s August 8, 2011 motion on
October 7, 2011. Via Judgment Entry filed November 14, 2011, the trial court set aside
the magistrate’s August 4, 2011 order. The trial court ordered Mother to answer
questions #2, 3, 4, 5, and 7, but ruled Mother was not required to answer questions #1
and 6.
{¶14} It is from this judgment entry Mother appeals, raising as her sole
assignment of error:
{¶15} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED ORDERING APPELLANT TO RESPOND
TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS BY DISCLOSING INFORMATION THAT IS
PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND ATTORNEY-WORK
PRODUCT, AFTER THE FINAL HEARING HAD BEGUN AND APPELLANT HAD
ALREADY PRESENTED HER CASE AND RESTED WHERE APPELLANT WAS
PROVIDED NO EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR OTHER OPPORTUNITY TO
RESPOND.”
I
{¶16} Mother’s assignment of error incorporates three separate issues. First,
Mother maintains the trial court erred in ordering her to respond to the deposition
questions at issue subsequent to the commencement of trial and her resting her case-
in-chief. Next, Mother argues the trial court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary
hearing. Finally, Mother contends the trial court erred in ordering her to respond to the
Ashland County, Case No. 11-COA-050 5
deposition questions as the information sought is protected by the attorney-client
privilege and/or constitutes attorney work product.
{¶17} The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure allow for liberal discovery. Pursuant to
Civ.R. 26(B)(1), the scope of discovery includes “ * * * any matter, not privileged, which
is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the
claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other
party * * *.” Trial courts are given broad discretion in the management of discovery.
State ex rel. Daggett v. Gessaman (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 55, 57, 295 N.E.2d 659. Thus,
an appellate court reviews discovery issues pursuant an abuse of discretion standard.
Geggie v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., Hancock App. No. 5-05-01, 2005-Ohio-4750, at ¶
25. Under this standard, reversal is warranted only where the trial court's attitude was
arbitrary, unreasonable or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio
St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140.
{¶18} Upon our review of the record, we find the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by ordering Mother to respond to the deposition questions after the hearing
had commenced before the magistrate. The magistrate was not able to complete the
hearing in one day. Because additional time was necessary to complete the
presentation of evidence, we find Mother cannot establish any prejudice resulting
therefrom. Furthermore, contrary to Mother’s assertion, we find the trial court did, in
fact, conduct an evidentiary hearing on her motion to set aside the magistrate’s August
4, 2011 Order, denying her Motion to Stay and to set aside the magistrate’s August 2,
2011 Order.
Ashland County, Case No. 11-COA-050 6
{¶19} We now turn to Mother’s assertion the trial court erred in ordering her to
respond to the deposition questions as such sought information which is privileged. The
issue of whether the information sought is confidential and privileged from disclosure is
a question of law that should be reviewed de novo. Medical Mut. of Ohio v. Schlotterer,
122 Ohio St.3d 181, 2009-Ohio-2496, 909 N.E.2d 1237, at ¶ 13; see also Roe v.
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, 122 Ohio St.3d 399, 2009-Ohio-2973,
912 N.E.2d 61, at ¶ 29. Privileges are to be strictly construed and “[t]he party claiming
the privilege has the burden of proving that the privilege applies to the requested
information.” Giusti v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr., 178 Ohio App.3d 53, 2008-Ohio-4333, 896
N.E.2d 769, at ¶ 17.
{¶20} Mother has failed to provide this Court with a transcript of the October 7,
2011 hearing before the trial court. Mother bears the burden of showing error by
reference to matters in the record. Knapp v. Edwards Lab. (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197;
State v. Prince (1991), 71 Ohio App.3d 694. An appellate court can reach its decision
only upon facts which are adduced in the trial court's proceeding and cannot base its
decision on allegations founded upon facts from outside of the record. Merillat v. Fulton
Cty. Bd. Of Commrs. (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 459.
{¶21} When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors
are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as
to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the
lower court's proceedings, and affirm.” Knapp, supra.
{¶22} Because Mother failed to provide this Court with a transcript of the
hearing, we may presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings and affirm.
Ashland County, Case No. 11-COA-050 7
Notwithstanding the absence of a transcript, we find the trial court did not err in ordering
Mother to answer the questions. We find, as did the trial court, the questions at issue
do not require answers to which the privilege would apply.
{¶23} Based upon the foregoing, we overrule Mother’s sole assignment of error.
{¶24} The judgment of the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Delaney, P.J. and
Wise, J. concur
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ Patricia A. Delaney _________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
s/ John W. Wise _____________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE
Ashland County, Case No. 11-COA-050 8
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JENNIFER WAGNER :
:
Plaintiff-Appellant :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
ADAM DENNIS :
:
Defendant-Appellee : Case No. 11-COA-050
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the
Ashland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to Mother-Appellant.
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ Patricia A. Delaney _________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
s/ John W. Wise _____________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE