Ohio Supreme Courts Finds That Trial Court Improperly Limited Its Own Discretion in Resolving Discovery Dispute

by Brianna Prislipsky, Esq.

In a 7-0 opinion, the Supreme Court of Ohio determined that a trial court did not make a proper factual inquiry in resolving a discovery dispute over peer review privileged documents, due in part to its failure to conduct an in-camera review of the controverted documents.  See, Stull v. Summa Health Systems, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-5718. In that opinion, the Supreme Court emphasized the broad discretion that a trial court is required to exercise in controlling the discovery process and interpreting evidence submitted in connection with discovery disputes. 

In Stull, the plaintiffs alleged that Summa Health System (“Summa”) and its employees failed to properly treat their son following an automobile crash, resulting in cardiac arrest and severe brain damage.  As part of discovery, the plaintiffs requested the entire resident file from the physician who had treated and evaluated their son.  Summa Health objected to this request, claiming that the file contained privileged peer review materials. 

The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel, which Summa opposed, relying upon an affidavit from the interim program director of its general surgery residency program, who stated that residency files contained materials which were within the scope of Summa Health’s peer review processes. 

The trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel, finding that Summa had not met its burden in establishing that peer review privilege applied to the file. The court further indicated that Summa would have been required to submit the documents in question to the trial court for an in-camera inspection, which Summa did not request, or present adequate testimony to assist the trial court in determining whether the privilege should attach.

While the court acknowledged the affidavit from the residency program director, it found that the affidavit was full of “generalities and conclusionary opinions” that did not absolutely establish a privilege. Summa appealed to the Ninth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and found that the trial court erred in failing to make further findings related to the nature of the privilege documents.  The Court noted that the trial court had the power to take a more active role in resolving the discovery dispute, and that it should have ordered an in-camera review on its own initiative. 

Going forward, the Supreme Court’s opinion suggests that trial courts should exercise more initiative in resolving discovery disputes related to privilege, including sua sponte ordering additional review of materials to assist it in its review.  It also suggests that, where a defendant’s evidentiary materials do not conclusively establish the existence of a privilege, but indicate that a privilege might be applicable, the trial court has an obligation to make further inquiries before ordering production of those documents. 

If you have any questions regarding this ruling, please contact a member of our Medical Malpractice or Appellate Advocacy Practice Groups.