Nelson v. Toledo Oxygen & Equipment Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
Upon review, we conclude that an order compelling the discovery of alleged work-product materials is not a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02.
Appellant Nelson contends that such an order is appealable under R.C. 2505.02 because it “affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding.” We agree that the qualified work-product exemption set forth in Civ.R. 26(B)(3) constitutes a “substantial right.” Civ.R. 26(B)(3) generally provides that trial-preparation materials are exempt from discovery unless “good cause” is shown for their production. The justification for this exemption was…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Cobbledick v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- State v. ThomasOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- American Express Warehousing, Ltd. v. Transamerica Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
- Amato v. General Motors Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Bell v. Mt. Sinai Medical CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- Polikoff v. AdamOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- State ex rel. Abner v. ElliottOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- Arnold v. American National Red CrossOhio Court of Appeals · 1994
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.