Case Title: State ex rel. The Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dept. of Ins.

Citation: 1997-Ohio-73

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-07-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE EX REL. THE PLAIN DEALER v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. The Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dept. of Ins. (1997), ___ 
Ohio St.3d ___.] 
 
(No. 96-2247 — Submitted July 7, 1997 — Decided July 16, 1997.) 
 
IN MANDAMUS. 
 
This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a 
writ of mandamus. 
 
IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, and in response to the 
motion for clarification of intervenor, that intervenor, Blue Cross/Blue 
Shield of Ohio, file with the Clerk of this court on or before July 23, 1997, 
the following documents: 
 
1.  Unredacted attachments to the July 30, 1996 letter from Climaco, 
Climaco, Seminatore, Lefkowitz & Garofoli Co., L.P.A., to Robert H. Katz, 
Ohio Department of Insurance, in response to the June 27, 1996 letter 
from David S. Meyer, Ohio Department of Insurance, including the 
following: 
 
2
 
a.  December 12, 1995 letter from Climaco, Climaco, Seminatore, 
Lefkowitz & Garofoli Co., L.P.A., to David Colby of Columbia/HCA Health 
Care Corporation, in unredacted form; 
 
b.  January 22, 1996 letter to Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & 
Jacobson to Climaco, Climaco, Seminatore, Lefkowitz & Garofoli Co., 
L.P.A., in unredacted form; 
 
c.  March 7, 1996 memo attached to July 30, 1996 letter, in 
unredacted form; 
 
d.  March 19, 1996 memo from Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & 
Jacobson to Climaco, Climaco, Seminatore, Lefkowitz & Garofoli Co., 
L.P.A., including any attachments or enclosures, in unredacted form. 
 
2.  July 31, 1996 letter from Douglas A. Andrews to Robert H. Katz, 
in original or unredacted form. 
 
3.  All attachments or enclosures, in original or unredacted form, to 
the July 31, 1996 letter from Douglas A. Andrews to Robert H. Katz. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that no further 
extensions of time to submit the aforementioned documents shall be 
permitted. 
 
3
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., dissents. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., dissenting.  I respectfully dissent.  The within order 
(entry re trade secrets) of the majority assumes the answer to the ultimate 
question before the court.  The question is whether documents required by 
the Ohio Department of Insurance to be submitted to the department for its 
use in connection with an examination conducted pursuant to R.C. 3901.07 
are public records notwithstanding the confidential-work-papers provision 
of R.C. 3901.48(B).  This threshold question must and should be answered 
before the trade-secret-protection matter (R.C. 1333.61) even becomes an 
issue. 
 
By issuing today’s order, the majority has, if effect, answered the 
ultimate question without explanation.  Given the importance of the 
confidentiality issue, as evidenced by the briefs of the amici Ohio 
Manufacturers’ Association, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio 
Insurance Institute, the Association of Ohio Life Insurance Companies and 
the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, all filed on behalf of 
 
4
respondents Ohio Department of Insurance and its Superintendent/Director 
Harold T. Duryee, it would seem that the majority, bypassing the real issue, 
has the cart before the horse.  In doing so, I submit, the respondents are 
confronted with the dilemma of either violating R.C. 3901.48 and complying 
with this court’s order, or complying with the statute and, in a piecemeal 
fashion, providing the material that might or could be covered by the 
court’s order. 
 
Given the content, scope, and effect of the within order, I am left to 
wonder:  Where are those voices which were so loudly heard on alleged 
liberal judicial activism regarding the school-funding case?  They seem to 
be strangely quiet. 
 
I respectfully dissent.