from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (C.P.C. No. 16
Webster & Associates Co., LPA, Geoffrey E. Webster, and
Bryan M. Pritikin; Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter, and
Jonathan E. Coughlan, for appellants.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Anthony J. Molnar, for
Geoffrey E. Webster; Jonathan E. Coughlan.
Anthony J Molnar.
1} Appellants, a rehabilitation and nursing center
("rehabilitation center") and its parent
organization,  appeal an entry of the Franklin County
Court of Common Pleas ordering production of documents
alleged by appellants to be protected under the work-product
doctrine. Because appellants have not argued or affirmatively
established that an immediate appeal is necessary in order to
afford a meaningful and effective remedy under R.C.
2505.02(B)(4)(b), we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final,
appealable order pursuant to Smith v. Chen, 142 Ohio
St.3d 411, 2015-Ohio-1480.
2} In 2016, during the course of grand jury
proceedings, appellee issued a subpoena to appellants
requesting internal investigation documentation related to a
self-reported incidence ("SRI") report submitted by
appellants to the Ohio Department of Health in 2014.
Appellants refused to produce certain internal investigation
documentation related to the SRI on the grounds that the
requested documents were protected under the
"work-product privilege" and provided a
corresponding privilege log based on a claimed work-product
privilege. Appellee filed a motion for a show cause order as
to why appellants should not be held in contempt for failing
to comply with the subpoenas. Appellants opposed the show
cause motion arguing the documents underlying the SRI
investigation at issue are not legally required as a part of
internal investigations, are not required to be turned over
to the state under any law, are instead work product prepared
in anticipation of litigation, and are not required to be
disclosed for good cause.
3} On May 12, 2017, the trial court found the
documents sought by appellee are not work product. Therefore,
the trial court ordered appellants to provide the requested
documents to appellee before a certain date as appellee had
failed to show cause why it should not be held in contempt.
Enforcement of the order to produce the documents is stayed
4} Appellants filed a timely appeal to this court,
presenting two assignments of error:
[1.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANTS'
COUNSELS INTERNAL INVESTIGATION WAS NOT PROTECTED, ...