Gangale v. Coyne
Citations
- 183 N.E.3d 1245
- 2022 Ohio 196
Syllabus
Motion to quash subpoena duces tecum Civ.R. 45(C)(3) nonparty tax returns financial records standing scope of discovery Civ.R. 26(B)(1). Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying nonparty's motion to quash subpoena duces tecum seeking production of nonparty's tax returns and other financial documents and ordering production pursuant to protective order. Nonparty had standing to file motion to quash subpoena duces tecum served on his accountant based on his personal interest in the documents sought. Trial court did not act unreasonably, arbitrarily or unconscionably in determining that documents at issue were discoverable under Civ.R. 26(B)(1) and 45.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “affirmative efforts to divert or mislead or prevent discovery of the original fraudulent act.”
- “It is true that the defendant obtained the money, as the jury have found, by a scheme of the grossest fraud and deception, and used all possible efforts to prevent plaintiffs from finding out the truth; but all these were in the transaction itself and prior to its consummation.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: E.A. Gallagher
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.