 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. South9/20/2004
nate or limit depositions and motion to quash the subpoena are not attendant upon nor do they aid the main or principal proceeding (i.e. the divorce action.) Rather, the state seeks to limit discovery, in the divorce action, in order to assist its interests in the criminal case against Appellee David South. As such, we conclude the denial of these motions was not a provisional remedy.
{ } Further, even if we determined that the denial of these motions was a provisional remedy, we still conclude the judgment entry appealed from pertaining to the discovery matters is not a final appealable order. There is no indication, in the record, that Appellee David South sought to discover privileged information. R.C. 2505.02(A)(3) defines privileged matter as a provisional remedy. We reached the same conclusion in Buffmyer.
{ } The Buffmyer case involved a claim for medical malpractice. Plaintiff filed subpoenas to depose the defendants' attorney and a risk manager in order to determine the cause of the decedent's death. Id. at 2. The defendants filed a motion to quash the subpoenas claiming attorney/client privilege. Id. The trial court denied the defendants' motion. Id. In concluding that the denial of the motion to quash subpoenas was not a final appealable order, we explained:
{ } "* * * Civ.R. 45(C)(3)(b) and (d) mandate that a trial court 'shall' quash or modify a subpoena if it ' equires disclosure of privileged or otherwise protected matter' or ' ubjects a person to undue burden.' Whether or not the matters sought by appellee [plaintiff] would violate the attorney/client privilege is not sufficiently developed by the record in its present state.
{ } "* * * Answers given by Attorney Warner and Ms. Smith to questions posed may not disclose privileged matters. Therefore, we conclude that in order to properly address the issues raised by Civ.R. 45(C)(3), it is at a minimum necessary to ask the questions and for the privilege rule to be invoked. The trial court can then, at hearing, determine if in fact privileged matters may be disclosed." Id. at 17- 18.
{ } Similarly, in the case sub judice, the state does not make the allegation that the disclosure of information from Detective Pierce involves privileged matter. Whether the information sought by Appellee David South would pertain to undiscoverable evidence under Crim.R. 16 is not sufficiently developed by the record.
{ } Accordingly, we conclude the denial of the motion for protective order, motion to terminate or limit depositions and motion to quash the subpoena is not a final appealable order. Therefore, this portion of the appeal pertaining to these motions is dismissed. This matter is remanded to the trial court for the commencement of the depositions previously cancelled by this Court. The stay previously imposed by this Court in its June 7, 2004 judgment entry is hereby lifted.
{ } The state's sole assignment of error is affirmed in part and dismissed in part.
{ } For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Fairfield County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed in part and dismissed in part.
By: Wise, J., Hoffman, J., and Farmer, J., concur.
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Fairfield County, Ohio, is affirmed in part and dismissed in part Costs assessed to the State of Ohio.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|