Williams-Salmon v. Raheja , 2022 Ohio 1675 ( 2022 )

[Cite as Williams-Salmon v. Raheja, 2022-Ohio-1675.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
MARILYN WILLIAMS-SALMON :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
Nos. 110856 and 110928
v. :
DEEPAK RAHEJA, M.D., ET AL., :
Defendants-Appellants. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 19, 2022
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CV-20-928108
Appearances:
Ryan, LLP, Thomas P. Ryan and Daniel J. Ryan, for
appellee.
Squire Patton Boggs, LLP and Colin R. Jennings, for
appellant Gregory Hayslette.
Donald J. Malarcik and John P. Stiles, for appellant Frank
Mazzucco.
CORNELIUS J. O’SULLIVAN, JR., J.:
Defendants-appellants, Gregory Hayslette (“Hayslette”) and Frank
Mazzucco (individually “Mazzucco,” collectively “appellants”) appeal the trial
court’s interlocutory order granting plaintiff-appellee’s Marilyn Williams-Salmon’s
(“appellee”) motion to compel. After a thorough review of the law and facts, we
affirm.
I. Procedural History and Facts
This civil suit emanates from a course of treatment for appellee wherein
she was prescribed prescription medication by her doctor, Deepak Raheja, M.D.
(“Dr. Raheja”). It was alleged that appellee received medical treatment from
Dr. Raheja between 2010-2016. Appellee claims at some point during this
treatment, she was misdiagnosed with a neurological disorder known as
Pseudobulbar Affect (“PBA”). Appellee maintains that she was unaware of her
misdiagnosis until November 2019, when she was informed by the United States
Attorney’s Office that she was a potential victim of an illegal kickback scheme. This
scheme allegedly involved Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Avanir”) and its
employees providing illegal incentives to Dr. Raheja in exchange for prescribing
medications to patients, like appellee, for conditions unsupported by their
presenting symptoms. Specifically, appellee contends that she was prescribed a
medication called Nuedexta, which is sold by Avanir. Hayslette worked for Avanir
as a pharmaceutical sales representative responsible for the marketing of Nuedexta.
Mazzucco was his supervisor. Appellee alleges she suffered numerous personal
injuries due to appellants’ conduct.
In 2019, appellants, among others, were charged in an 83-count
indictment in federal court. The indictment alleged, among other crimes, that the
appellants had violated the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-
7b(b)(1)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b)(2)(B).1
Appellee filed the underlying action against appellants, Dr. Raheja and
Avanir, on January 21, 2020, alleging: medical malpractice against Dr. Raheja;
medical battery and lack of informed consent against Dr. Raheja; negligence against
all defendants; civil recovery for a criminal act, R.C. 2307.60, against all defendants;
Ohio corrupt practices act, R.C. 2923.34, against all defendants; and civil conspiracy
against all defendants.2
The court conducted a status conference on December 17, 2020, and
ordered the parties to complete fact discovery by August 31, 2021. In December
2020, appellee filed an amended complaint, attaching an affidavit of merit
pursuant to Civ.R. 10(D)(2); the amended complaint included the same parties,
allegations, and prayers for relief as the original pleading. Appellee filed motions
to compel discovery against each appellant in June 2021, those motions were
granted by the court on September 15, 2021. This timely appeal follows.
A. The Discovery Dispute
1 In March 2022, Hayslette pled guilty to Count 1, Conspiracy to Solicit,
Receive, Offer and Pay Healthcare Kickbacks in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and is
awaiting sentencing. Trial for Mazzucco and Dr. Raheja is set for October 2022. Dr.
Raheja is not a party to this appeal.
2 In February 2020, Avanir removed the case to federal court asserting that
federal court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331. In March 2020, appellee filed
to remand the case back to state court; the court granted her motion. Williams-
Salmon v. Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc., N.D.Ohio No. 1:20 CV 419, 2020 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 136347, 17 (July 31, 2020).
In March 2021, appellee issued discovery requests to both appellants,
which included interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests
for admissions.
i. Interrogatories
Appellee’s interrogatories asked each appellant to identify and/or
confirm:
1. Witnesses, including expert witnesses. (INT #1-2, 5)
2. Exhibits to be used at trial. (INT #3)
3. Persons who assisted appellants in preparing discovery. (INT #4)
4. Name, current and former addresses, employers. (INT #5, 8, 9)
5. Proper service of complaint. (INT #6)
6. Employment history with Avanir. (INT #10-12, 14-15)
7. Sources of income. (INT #13)
8. Statements given to Avanir or Avanir investigators. (INT #16, 19)
9. Witnesses in federal criminal case. (INT #17-18)
10. Civil and criminal case history. (INT #20-21)
11. Witness statements in connection with criminal case. (INT #22)
12. Insurance coverage and any communications with insurer.
(INT #23)
ii. Request for Production of Documents
Appellee’s request for production of documents requested copies of:
1. Documents to be used in trial. (RFP #1)
2. Appellee’s medical records and bills. (RFP #2-4)
3. Appellants’ curriculum vitae. (RFP #5)
4. Expert reports. (RFP #6-9)
5. Photographs or video recordings of appellee. (RFP #10)
6. Communications among co-defendants. (RFP #11-13)
7. Communications with other named individuals, including Avanir.
(RFP #14-30)
8. Contracts with Avanir. (RFP #31-33)
9. Avanir training manuals, assessments, or compliance documents.
(RFP #34)
10. Reports, recordings, and video recordings related to services
provided to appellee. (RFP #35)
11. Documents received from the government during appellants’
criminal matter. (RFP #36-37)
12. Payments received from Avanir. (RFP #38)
13. Insurance coverage and any communications with appellants’
insurance companies. (RFP #39-42)
14. Communication between appellants and appellee. (RFP #43)
14. Account profile sheets demonstrating the number of patients seen
by Dr. Raheja from 2011 to 2016. (RFP #44)
15. Avanir’s internal investigation report and file. (RFD#45-47)
16. Documents concerning Avanir’s Speaker’s Bureau Program,
including the training and communication from lawyers, managers,
and compliance personnel. (RFP #47-49, 56)
17. Communications with Avanir’s compliance or legal department.
(RFP #50)
18. Documents representing deleted text messages of Avanir
employees. (RFP #51)
19. Government subpoenas. (RFP #52-53)
20. Notes from the September 23, 2019, meeting of Avanir’s board of
directors. (RFP #54-55)
21. Documents related to and copies of various research reports and
studies. (RFP #57, 59)
22. Documents related to “the criminal case in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Criminal Action
Number 1:19-CR-oo369, if any.” (RFP #58)
iii. Request for Admissions
Appellee’s request for admissions asked appellants to admit to the
following:
1. Admit to the authenticity of each document produced in discovery.
(RFA #1)
2. Admit that the text messages between each appellant and his co-
defendants as listed as exhibits in the criminal complaint are “true and
accurate.” (RFA #2, 4, 21, 23)
3. Admit that the text messages between each appellant and his co-
defendants as listed as exhibits in the criminal complaint are authentic
duplicates of the text communications. (RFA #3, 5, 22, 24).
4. Admit that payments made by appellants as listed as exhibits in the
criminal complaint are “true and accurate,” that appellants made those
payments or directed them to be made, and the exhibits are authentic
duplicates of the amounts stated. (RFA #6 – 16, 17 – 19)
5. Admit appellants paid for dinners on the dates as listed in exhibits to
the criminal complaint. (RFA #17, 20).
iv. Appellants’ Assert Fifth Amendment Privilege
Appellants separately responded to each of the 116 discovery requests
with substantially the same statement, which reads as follows:
Defendant respectfully declines to answer based upon the protections
guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
and by Section 10, Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution. Pursuant to
Rogers v. Webster, 776 F.2d 607, 611 (6th Cir. 1985), Defendant
requests that the Court treat this claim of privilege as equivalent to a
specific denial and put the Plaintiff to its proof of the matter asserted.
(Italics added.)
After receiving these perfunctory responses, appellee corresponded
with each appellant seeking their cooperation and attempting to resolve this
discovery dispute without court intervention. Appellants reasserted their prior
responses, providing no information in response to appellee’s written discovery and
reasserting a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege. Appellee then filed separate
motions to compel, and the matter was fully briefed below.
On September 15, 2021, the trial court granted appellee’s motions to
compel discovery, finding that “Defendants have failed to establish how the specific
discovery requests create a hazard of incriminating [them].” The trial court ordered
the appellants to provide discovery responses “to plaintiff’s interrogatories, request
for production of documents, and request for admissions within 14 days of the date
of this entry.”
II. Assignments of Error
A. Hayslette’s Assignments of Error
I. The trial court erred in granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel
discovery after Mr. Hayslette properly asserted his right against self-
incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.
II. The trial court erred in granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel
discovery after Mr. Hayslette properly asserted his right against self-
incrimination guaranteed by the Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio
Constitution.
B. Mazzucco’s Assignment of Error
I. The trial court erred as a matter of law compelling Mr. Mazzucco to
respond to discovery requests in violation of his right against self-
incrimination under the United States and Ohio Constitutions.
We have sua sponte consolidated the appeals for review. The
assignments of error are also combined for review.
III. Law and Analysis
A. Standard of Review
This appeal involves mixed questions of law and fact. Appellants
contend that the privilege against self-incrimination applies to the requested
discovery. That is a question of law we review de novo. Sojic v. Karp, 2015-Ohio-
3692, 41 N.E.3d 888, ¶ 21 - 22 (2d Dist.); Neal v. Lilly, 2d Dist. Montgomery
Nos. 28082 and 28400, 2020-Ohio-128, ¶ 29. We review the trial court’s order
compelling answers to a particular question for an abuse of discretion. Karp at ¶ 22.
The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure provide the method by which
objections may be made to interrogatories and the production of documents.
See State ex rel. DeWine v. Buckeye Impact Group, LLC, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-
18-001, 2018-Ohio-4578, ¶ 6. Civ.R. 33(A)(3) provides, in relevant part:
Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing
under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the reasons for
objection shall be stated in lieu of an answer. The party upon whom the
interrogatories have been served shall quote each interrogatory
immediately preceding the corresponding answer or objection. * * *
The answers are to be signed by the person making them, and the
objections signed by the attorney making them.
Civ.R. 34(B)(1) provides, in relevant part:
The party upon whom the request is served shall serve a written
response within a period designated in the request that is not less than
twenty-eight days after the service of the request or within a shorter or
longer time as the court may allow. With respect to each item or
category, the response shall state that inspection and related activities
will be permitted as requested, unless it is objected to, including an
objection to the requested form or forms for producing electronically
stored information, in which event the reasons for objection shall be
stated. If objection is made to part of an item or category, the part shall
be specified.
B. Right against Self-Incrimination
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, in
pertinent part, “No person * * * shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself [or herself] * * *.” Section 10, Article I, Ohio Constitution
similarly provides “No person shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a
witness against himself [or herself].”
The protections of the Fifth Amendment apply in any type of
proceeding, including civil proceedings, and exist primarily to “assure that an
individual is not compelled to produce evidence which may later be used against
him [or her] as an accused in a criminal action.” Cincinnati v. Bawtenheimer, 63
Ohio St.3d 260, 264, 586 N.E.2d 1065 (1992), citing Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S.
449, 461, 95 S.Ct. 584, 592, 42 L.Ed.2d 574 (1975). In this context, “incrimination”
means not only evidence that would directly support a criminal conviction but
information that would furnish a link in the chain of evidence that could lead to
prosecution, as well as evidence that an individual “reasonably believes” could be
used against him or her in a criminal prosecution. In re M.B., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
Nos. 101094, 101095, and 101096, 2014-Ohio-4837, ¶ 9, citing Bawtenheimer and
Maness. Those protections extend through the sentencing phase of a criminal
case. See Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 328-329, 119 S.Ct. 1307, 143
L.Ed.2d 424 (1999).
“The privilege against self-incrimination, one of our most cherished
fundamental rights, is jealously guarded by the courts.” N. River Ins. Co. v.
Stefanou, 831 F.2d 484, 486-487 (4th Cir.1987). “It protects an individual not only
from involuntarily becoming a witness against himself [or herself] in a criminal
proceeding but also from answering specific allegations in a complaint or filing
responses to interrogatories in a civil action where the answers might incriminate
him [or her] in future criminal actions.” Id.“The privilege against self-incrimination may not be invoked merely
by asserting that the information sought * * * may in a general sense be
incriminatory.” Bawtenheimer at 266. In general, a witness may not make a
blanket assertion of his or her Fifth Amendment privilege; the “presumption against
blanket assertions of Fifth Amendment privilege is premised on the commonsense
notion that a judge must know what the witness believes is incriminating in order to
evaluate whether the witness invokes the privilege with ‘reasonable cause.”’ Sojic,
2015-Ohio-3692, 41 N.E.3d 888 (2d Dist.) at ¶ 31, citing United States v. Bates, 552
F.3d 472, 475-476 (6th Cir. 2009).
“A blanket assertion of the privilege is not sufficient to show
reasonable cause to apprehend a real danger of incrimination, and the privilege
cannot be claimed in advance of the questions. The privilege must be asserted as to
particular questions.” State ex rel. DeWine v. Buckeye Impact Group, LLC, 6th Dist.
Sandusky No. S-18-001, 2018-Ohio-4578, ¶ 5, citing In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d
161, 167 (6th Cir. 1983). In order to properly invoke the privilege, the person
claiming it must not only affirmatively assert it but must also do so “with sufficient
particularity to allow an informed ruling on the claim.” (Emphasis added.)
Stefanou at 487.
Once a person has properly invoked the privilege, the court must
determine whether a valid Fifth Amendment privilege has been asserted. To do so,
a court first asks if the information is incriminating in nature. Bawtenheimer, 63
Ohio St.3d at 266, 586 N.E.2d 1065, citing United States v. Sharp 920 F.2d 1167,
1170 (4th Cir.1990). It may be evident on its face, considering the question asked
and the circumstances of its asking, and if it is facially evident, the inquiry ends.
Bawtenheimer at 266-267, citing Sharp. If it is not facially evident, the person
asserting the privilege may yet demonstrate its incriminating potential by further
contextual proof. Bawtenheimer at 267, citing Sharp. If the incriminating nature of
the information is established by either route, there remains the question whether
criminal prosecution is sufficiently a possibility, all things considered, to trigger the
need for constitutional protection. Vega v. Tivurcio, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-
327, 2014-Ohio-4588, ¶ 24, citing Bawtenheimer. As to this, the proper test simply
assesses the objective reasonableness of the party’s claimed apprehension of the
prosecution. Vega at id., citing Bawtenheimer.
C. Parties’ Arguments
In the case at bar, each appellant moved to stay the case until his
criminal case resolved. The trial court denied the motions. The Fifth Amendment
does not prohibit civil litigation while the possibility of criminal prosecution exists,
and it ‘“does not shield a party from appearing or defending in a civil action.”’ Sojic
at ¶ 30, quoting Sweet v. Hunt, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2013 CA 37, 2014-Ohio-631,
¶ 11.
Appellee contends that the appellants impermissibly refused to
answer discovery by giving a blanket refusal to respond. The appellants contend
that their discovery responses were not blanket assertions because they comport
with the Civil Rules.
In Buckeye Impact Group, LLC, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-18-001,
2018-Ohio-4578, the Ohio Attorney General’s Office filed a complaint against the
appellants alleging violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. The
Attorney General served the appellants with interrogatories and requests for the
production of documents and filed a motion to compel when appellants were not
forthcoming with discovery. In response, the appellants asserted that the discovery
would violate their constitutionally protected right against self-incrimination. The
Sixth District Court of Appeals held that the appellants did not properly invoke the
right against self-incrimination because they did not respond to the interrogatories
or document requests with specific objections or answers on a question-by-question
basis. Moreover, the appellants did not respond in accordance with Civ.R. 33(A)(3)
or 34(B)(1).
In the case at bar, the appellants responded to every one of appellee’s
33 interrogatories, 59 requests for production of documents, and 24 requests for
admissions with substantially the same statement:
Defendant respectfully declines to answer based upon the protections
guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
and by Section 10, Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution. Pursuant to
Rogers v. Webster, 776 F.2d 607, 611 (6th Cir. 1985), Defendant
requests that the Court treat this claim of privilege as equivalent to a
specific denial and put the Plaintiff to its proof of the matter asserted.
(Italics added.)
While the appellants’ answers arguably comport with Civ.R. 33(A)(3)
and 34(B)(1), we find making the same statement attempting to invoke one’s Fifth
Amendment privilege to 116 discovery requests equates to a blanket assertion of
privilege.
A cursory review of the questions posed in discovery show numerous
basic questions, such as legal name (INT #5), service of complaint (INT #6),
addresses (INT #8), and employment history (INT #9-12) that do not ask for
privileged information. And while we do not dispute that some, if not many, of the
116 discovery requests “could lead to incriminating information” as argued by
appellants, they must first properly invoke their privilege against self-incrimination
before the trial court is charged with determining if the requested information is
privileged.
Appellants contend that because they were already under
indictment and appellee’s discovery requests asked for admissions or documents
directly related to their criminal indictments, it should have been clear to the trial
court that answering any of the discovery requests incriminate them. The problem
with appellants’ argument is that it presupposes that they properly asserted the
privilege.
The appellants argue that the lower court erred in not performing a
question-by-question inquiry as to their self-incrimination claim and should
determine the merits of their assertion of privilege. The appellants, however,
improperly place the onus on the trial court.3 A person wishing in good faith to
assert the privilege must do so “with respect to particular [allegations],” thereby
allowing the trial court to determine the propriety of each refusal. Stefanou, 831
F.2d at 487 (4th Cir.), citing Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d 1204,
1212 (8th Cir. 1973). The privilege may be asserted and preserved during discovery
proceedings but must be done “in specifics sufficient to provide the court with a
record upon which to decide whether the privilege has been properly asserted as
to each question.” Stefanou at id., citing United States v. Gordon, 10 C.I.T. 292,
634 F. Supp. 409, 418 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1986).
3 Hayslette argues that the court failed to “engage in the deliberative process
necessary to assess the assertion of the privilege * * * while also not undertaking any
analysis to balance the interests of the parties.” Hayslette Brief, p. 20. Mazzucco contends
that a question-by-question assessment is unnecessary because the risk of incrimination
had already been realized because he was presently under indictment. Mazzucco Brief, p.
16.
Thus, because the appellants made the same blanket assertion for each
of the 33 interrogatories, 59 requests for production of documents, and 24 requests
for admissions, they have failed to answer with sufficient specificity to provide the
trial court “with a record upon which to decide whether the privilege has been
properly asserted as to each question.” (Emphasis added.) Stefanou at id., citing
Gordon at id.The record before us clearly demonstrates that appellants made a
blanket assertion of privilege; they have failed to show that the questions
propounded upon them in discovery present a significant hazard of incrimination
that would involve the Fifth Amendment privilege. In view of the fact that appellants
did not properly invoke their rights against self-incrimination, we determine that
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in compelling discovery from them.
Appellant Hayslette makes the request that even if this court does not
reverse the trial court’s decision, we should remand with instructions that the trial
court individually assess each assertion of the right against self-incrimination and
balance the respective interests of the parties. Hayslette Reply Brief, p. 10. This
request was never made at the trial-court level, and we decline to consider it for the
first time on appeal. See Stefanou at 487, citing United States v. One 1971 Mercedes
Benz, 542 F.2d 912, 915 (4th Cir. 1976). We note, however, that nothing in this
opinion precludes appellants from properly asserting or reasserting their Fifth
Amendment privilege on remand or at other stages in the litigation.
Accordingly, the assignments of error are overruled.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellants costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the common pleas court to carry
this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
_____________________________
CORNELIUS J. O’SULLIVAN, JR., JUDGE
ANITA LASTER MAYS, P.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR