DMS Constr. Ents., L.L.C. v. Homick

Citations

• 2020 Ohio 4919

Syllabus

Final, appealable order motion for protective order R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) work product doctrine consulting expert privilege former Civ.R. 26(B)(3) and 26(B)(5) testifying expert nontestifying, consulting expert colorable claim lack of meaningful or effective remedy by postjudgment appeal. Appeal dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order. Appellate courts must decide on a case-by-case basis whether a trial court ruling ordering the disclosure of information allegedly protected by the work product doctrine is appealable based on whether the appellant has shown that a postjudgment appeal would be truly meaningless or ineffective. Trial court order denying appellants' motion for protective order and allowing for deposition of appellants' expert over appellants' objections based on the work product doctrine and consulting expert privilege was not a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) where appellants did not show that they would not be afforded a meaningful or effective remedy in a postjudgment appeal.