THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 ) 

)

STEVE SNYDER-HILL, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 )

Case No. 2:18-cv-00736 

Judge Michael H. Watson 

Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. 

Deavers 

 ) 

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO OHIO STATE’S MEMORANDUM CONCERNING THE 

CONFIDENTIALITY OF PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (dkt. 123) contains no confidential 

information. Ohio State raises concerns about three paragraphs that link a particular deponent to 

an already-public statement made to the Medical Board. Ohio State suggests that disclosure the 

deponents’ voluntary statement may somehow violate R.C. § 4731.22(F)(5) (the “State Statute”). 

Ohio State is mistaken. First, as OSU concedes, this Medical Board testimony is 

already public. Only the linking of the OSU witness to the testimony was not. Nothing in the 

State Statute prevents disclosure of such a link. See Id. 

Second, the State Statute is at most a restriction on what the Medical Board must 

produce. Id. (“The board shall not make public the names or any other identifying information 

about patients or complainants unless proper consent is given.”). Nothing in the State Statute 

prevents a witness from revealing his or her own testimony to the Medical Board. Here, the 

deponent voluntarily provided testimony about his statements to the Medical Board. He was 

represented by counsel, his counsel never objected to this line of questioning, and his counsel 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 125 Filed: 06/12/20 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 2364
2 

never asked that the testimony be confidential.1 The State Statute imposes no confidentiality 

where there is “consent.” Id. 

Third, the State Statute “protect[s] the confidentiality of patients and persons who 

file complaints with the board.” Id. The deponent is not a patient, nor did he file a complaint 

with the board. 

Finally, though unnecessary to resolve this issue, a federal court adjudicating a 

federal claim is not bound by state confidentiality statutes. See Dwayne B. v. Granholm, No. 

CIV.A. 06-13548, 2007 WL 2372363, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 17, 2007) (“Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure take precedence over state confidentiality statutes in defining the scope of discovery 

in federal cases.”); Pearson v. Miller, 211 F.3d 57, 61 (3d Cir. 2000) (“discovery disputes in 

federal courts are governed by federal law, especially the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

the Federal Rules of Evidence, the state statutory confidentiality provisions that have been 

invoked by appellants . . . do not directly govern the present dispute”); Seales v. Macomb 

County, 226 F.R.D. 572, 576 (E.D. Mich. 2005) (“this Court is not bound by a state statutory 

privilege not also found in federal statutes or common law”); see also Hancock v. Dodson, 958 

F.2d 1367, 1373 (6th Cir. 1992) (where federal court was adjudicating federal claim, court must 

“apply the federal law of privilege” and “because the federal courts do not recognize a federal 

physician-patient privilege” the Michigan state physician-patient privilege was inapplicable). 

Plaintiffs should be permitted to file their Second Amended Complaint publicly, 

including paragraphs 237, 238, and 247. 

1 This deponent has also stated publicly that he spoke to the Medical Board about Dr. Strauss.

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 125 Filed: 06/12/20 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 2365
3 

DATED: June 12, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 /s/ 

SCOTT E. SMITH (0003749) 

Phil Judy 

Scott Elliot Smith, LPA 

5003 Horizons Drive, Suite 101 

Columbus, Ohio 43220 

Phone: 614.846.1700 

Fax: 614.486.4987 

E-mail: ses@sestriallaw.com 

E-mail: plj@sestriallaw.com 

 /s/ 

Ilann M. Maazel* 

Debra L. Greenberger* 

Marissa R. Benavides* 

EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF 

 & ABADY LLP 

600 Fifth Ave, 10th Floor 

New York, NY 10075 

Phone: 212-763-5000 

Fax: 212-763-5001 

E-mail: imaazel@ecbalaw.com

E-mail: dgreenberger@ecbalaw.com 

/s/ 

Adele P. Kimmel* 

Alexandra Brodsky* 

PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. 

1620 L Street, NW, Suite 630 

Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: (202) 797-8600 

Fax: (202) 232-7203 

E-mail: akimmel@publicjustice.net 

* Admitted pro hac vice

COUNSEL FOR SNYDER-HILL PLAINTIFFS

 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 125 Filed: 06/12/20 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 2366
4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

A copy of this document was served by the Court’s ECF System on all counsel of record 

on June 12, 2020, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). 

 /s/ Debra. L Greenberger 

 Debra L. Greenberger 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 125 Filed: 06/12/20 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 2367