Case Name: McHENRY et al., Appellees, v. GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1995-06-05
Citations: 104 Ohio App. 3d 350
Docket Number: No. 67481
Parties: McHENRY et al., Appellees, v. GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
Judges: Harper and Dyke, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Appellate Reports, Third Series
Volume: 104
Pages: 350–354

Head Matter:
McHENRY et al., Appellees, v. GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
[Cite as McHenry v. Gen. Acc. Ins. Co. (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 350.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.
No. 67481.
Decided June 5, 1995.
Donald E. Caranova & Associates and Donald E. Caranova, for appellees.
James L. Glowacki and Christopher R. Claflin, for appellant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Upon review, we find that the instant matter must be dismissed for lack of a final appealable order pursuant to R.C. 2505.02.
The trial court's order denying appellant's motion for a protective order and granting appellees' motion to compel production of appellant's claims file constitutes an interlocutory appeal of a discovery order. Such order is neither final nor appealable pursuant to R.C. 2505.02, Polikoff v. Adam (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 100, 616 N.E.2d 213, and Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 638, 635 N.E.2d 331, modifying Bell v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 60, 616 N.E.2d 181.
Consequently, we vacate Entry No. 53662 (Nov. 14, 1994) which granted appellant's motion for reconsideration of Entry No. 53294 (June 29, 1994) which previously dismissed its appeal for lack of a final appealable order pursuant to R.C. 2505.02.
For the foregoing reasons, we find we must once again dismiss this appeal and do so sua sponte.
Appellant may avoid alleged irreparable harm by moving the trial court for an in camera inspection of its files. The trial court is obliged to provide such inspection prior to granting a motion to compel production when issues of work product or attorney client privilege are raised. See Peyko v. Frederick (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 164, 25. OBR 207, 495 N.E.2d 918, paragraph two of the syllabus.
Appeal dismissed.
Harper and Dyke, JJ., concur.
John T. Patton, C.J., concurs separately.