Court Opinion

ID: 9878875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 17:46:22.169427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:05.351702
License: Public Domain

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
  

   {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Rodney Plogger filed this appeal from the trial court's denial of a motion in limine that sought to preclude testimony allegedly protected by the attorney-client privilege. Because the trial court's ruling is not a final, appealable order, we must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
  

   {¶ 2} On November 4, 2015, plaintiff filed a personal injury action claiming that he had been seriously injured in an automobile accident that was alleged to have been negligently caused by defendant-appellee Justin Myers. During plaintiff's deposition, his counsel objected to questioning about who had referred plaintiff to his treating physician on the basis of attorney-client privilege. After contacting the court during the deposition, the parties were informed that the questions should be answered. However, the deposition was concluded without the disputed questions being answered.
  

   {¶ 3} Plaintiff proceeded to file a motion in limine, seeking to preclude defendant's counsel from asking any questions or attempting to elicit any answers in this context, and asserting the information is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The trial court denied the motion. The trial court determined that the questioning asked "about a fact" as opposed to the details of a conversation between plaintiff and his attorney, and was not protected by the attorney-client privilege. The court further found that "the answer is relevant to the issue of potential bias and credibility of the treating physician."
  

   {¶ 4} Plaintiff-appellant appealed the trial court's ruling, claiming the trial court erred in its determination regarding the attorney-client privilege.
  

   {¶ 5} As an initial matter, we recognize that this appeal was taken from a ruling on a motion in limine. The parties dispute whether this court has jurisdiction over the appeal and have fully briefed the issue.
  

   {¶ 6} An appellate court has no jurisdiction in the absence of a final, appealable order.
   
    Lycan v. Cleveland
   
   ,
   
    146 Ohio St.3d 29
   
   ,
   
    2016-Ohio-422
   
   ,
   
    51 N.E.3d 593
   
   , ¶ 21. A ruling on a motion in limine is a " 'tentative, preliminary or presumptive ruling about an evidentiary issue that is anticipated' " and is not subject to appellate review " 'unless the claimed error is preserved by an objection, proffer, or ruling on the record when the issue is actually reached and the context is developed at trial.' "
   
    State v. Grubb
   
   ,
   
    28 Ohio St.3d 199
   
   , 203,
   
    503 N.E.2d 142
   
   (1986), quoting Palmer,
   
    Ohio Rules of Evidence Rules Manual
   
   , at 446 (1984).
   
    See also
   

    State v. Brown
   
   ,
   
    38 Ohio St.3d 305
   
   , 311-312,
   
    528 N.E.2d 523
   
   (1988) ;
   
    Gable v. Gates Mills
   
   ,
   
    103 Ohio St.3d 449
   
   ,
   
    2004-Ohio-5719
   
   ,
   
    816 N.E.2d 1049
   
   , ¶ 34.
  

   {¶ 7} We recognize that the Ohio Supreme Court has held that "a discovery order that is alleged to breach the confidentiality guaranteed by the attorney-client privilege satisfies R.C. 2505.02(B)(4)(b) and is a final, appealable order that is potentially subject to immediate review."
   
    Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic
   
   ,
   
    151 Ohio St.3d 356
   
   ,
   
    2016-Ohio-8000
   
   ,
   
    89 N.E.3d 536
   
   , ¶ 2. Unlike
   
    Burnham
   
   , there is no discovery order mandating the production of allegedly privileged material in this matter.
  

   {¶ 8} The record reflects that the court had instructed the parties during the deposition that the disputed questions should be answered. Although appellant argues that the answer to who had referred plaintiff to his treating physician is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the question was never answered. A motion in limine was then filed that sought to preclude testimony in this regard, on the basis of the attorney-client privilege.
  

   {¶ 9} The attorney-client privilege is the oldest of the confidential communication privileges known in the common law.
   
    Upjohn Co. v. United States
   
   ,
   
    449 U.S. 383
   
   , 389,
   
    101 S.Ct. 677
   
   ,
   
    66 L.Ed.2d 584
   
   (1981). The primary purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to "to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice."
   

     Id.
    

   The attorney-client privilege does not prevent disclosure of the underlying fact; it only protects disclosure of the communications.
   

     Id.
    

    at 395
   
   ,
   
    101 S.Ct. 677
   
   . "In Ohio, the attorney-client privilege is governed both by statute, R.C. 2317.02(A), which provides a testimonial privilege, and by common law, which broadly protects against any dissemination of information obtained in the confidential attorney-client relationship."
   
    State ex rel. Dawson v. Bloom-Carroll Local School Dist.
   
   ,
   
    131 Ohio St.3d 10
   
   ,
   
    2011-Ohio-6009
   
   ,
   
    959 N.E.2d 524
   
   , ¶ 27, citing
   
    State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port Auth.
   
   ,
   
    121 Ohio St.3d 537
   
   ,
   
    2009-Ohio-1767
   
   ,
   
    905 N.E.2d 1221
   
   , ¶ 24.
  

   {¶ 10} Appellee argues that the attorney's act of referring a client to a treating physician is an underlying fact, not a communication. Appellee cites to no Ohio case directly on point. Appellant argues that an attorney's recommendation to his client that he seek care from a particular doctor is a "communication" that is protected by the attorney-client privilege. Appellant cites to a Florida decision that determined: "The question does not elicit the underlying fact of whether she saw a particular physician, but rather elicits whether she saw the physician at her attorney's request" and thereby "seeks discovery of confidential communications constituting her attorney's advice regarding [the] lawsuit."
   
    Burt v. Govt. Emps. Ins. Co.
   
   ,
   
    603 So.2d 125
   
   , 125-126 (Fla.App.1992).
   
    1
   

   {¶ 11} However, because the trial court's ruling was on a motion in limine, it has yet to make a final determination on the issue. Thus, we make no determination as to the attorney-client privilege issue raised.
  

   {¶ 12} Even in the context of privilege, the Ohio Supreme Court has found that the denial of a motion in limine raising privilege grounds does not preserve a claimed error for review without a proper objection being raised at trial.
   
    State v. Hancock
   
   ,
   
    108 Ohio St.3d 57
   
   ,
   
    2006-Ohio-160
   
   ,
   
    840 N.E.2d 1032
   
   , ¶ 59. Likewise, a majority
   of appellate courts that have considered the issue have found that even when alleged privileged communications are at issue, a ruling on a motion in limine is not a final order.
   
    See
   

    Henderson v. Henderson
   
   ,
   
    150 Ohio App.3d 339
   
   ,
   
    2002-Ohio-6496
   
   ,
   
    780 N.E.2d 1072
   
   , ¶ 10 (10th Dist.), citing
   
    In re Isaacs
   
   , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 18104,
   
    2000 WL 1072333
   
   , 1-2, 4 (July 31, 2000) (granting of motion in limine preventing admission of allegedly privileged documents would not be a final order subject to review);
   
    In re Neyland
   
   , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-91-271,
   
    1992 WL 158949
   
   , 3 (July 10, 1992) (denial of motion in limine regarding allegedly privileged testimony not reviewable by appeals court absent objection raised at trial);
   
    State v. Well
   
   , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-940307,
   
    1994 WL 721901
   
   , 1-2 (Dec. 21, 1994).
   
    Accord
   

    State v. Conley
   
   , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 69597,
   
    1996 WL 476438
   
   , 4-5 (Aug. 22, 1996) (a party may not rest on in limine ruling as to privilege issue, and must raise its objection anew when the issue is again raised at trial);
   
    State v. Cherukuri
   
   ,
   
    79 Ohio App.3d 228
   
   , 232-233,
   
    607 N.E.2d 56
   
   (11th Dist.1992) (claim of physician-patient privilege raised in limine as to admission of emergency room nurses' testimony not subject to review when not preserved by objection at trial);
   
    see also
   

    Liebe v. Admin.
   
   , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100230,
   
    2014-Ohio-1834
   
   ,
   
    2014 WL 1775905
   
   (finding an order denying a motion in limine to exclude work product from trial was not a final, appealable order). In light of these decisions, we are not inclined to follow
   
    Akron v. Carter
   
   ,
   
    190 Ohio App.3d 420
   
   ,
   
    2010-Ohio-5462
   
   ,
   
    942 N.E.2d 409
   
   (9th Dist.), wherein the court determined that a ruling on a motion in limine relating to privileged mediation communications was a definitive ruling that constituted a final, appealable order.
   
    Id.
   
   at ¶ 8-12.
  

   {¶ 13} Accordingly, we find the order appealed is not a final, appealable order and that we lack jurisdiction to review the matter.
  

   {¶ 14} Appeal dismissed.
  

   TIM McCORMACK, P.J., CONCURS;
  

   EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCURS WITH SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
  

    Similarly, another court has stated:
   

    That the plaintiff was treated by a particular doctor is an underlying fact. That the plaintiff received a referral to see a particular doctor is also an underlying fact. However, whether the plaintiff's attorney requested that the client see a certain doctor requires the plaintiff to disclose a part of a communication that was held between the plaintiff and attorney, and we resist any attempts to separate the contents of communications to distinguish "facts" from privileged information. To hold otherwise would severely undermine the purpose of the privilege, which is to encourage the free flow of information between attorneys and their clients.
   

     Worley v. Cent. Florida Young Men's Christian Assn.
    
    , Fla. S.Ct. No. SC15-1086,
    
     228 So.3d 18
    
    ,
    
     2017 WL 1366126
    
    , 2017 Fla. LEXIS 812 (Apr. 13, 2017).