Preview
CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 1 of 10
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO
MICHAEL A. RENNE, as Guardian of the ) CASE NO. CV-2020-02-0578
Estate of L.P., a minor, )
) JUDGE MARY MARGARET ROWLANDS
Plaintiff, )
) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO SUMMIT
vs. ) COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES’
) MOTION TO QUASH
SUMMA HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, MICHAEL A. RENNE, as Guardian of the Estate of L.P., a
minor, pursuant to Civ. R. 26 and Civ. R. 45, and hereby moves that this Honorable Court deny
non-party Summit County Children Services’ (“SCCS”) Motion to Quash. As reasons therefore,
Plaintiffs submit that the subpoenaed information is relevant and material to Plaintiff’s claims in
this matter and is necessary for Plaintiff to comply with this Court’s previous order dated
4/1/2022. (Subpoena to SCCS attached as Exhibit A) (4/1/2022 Court Order attached as Exhibit
B). Moreover, Plaintiff and SCCS have conferred and agreed on a protective order that protects
the interests of all parties and non-parties. In further support, Plaintiffs submit as follows:
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under Civ. R. 45(C)(3)(d), a trial court may quash or modify a subpoena if the subpoena
requires disclosure of privileged or otherwise protected matter or subjects the custodian to an
undue burden. The movant bears the initial burden of establishing undue burden. McDade v.
Morris, 2015-Ohio-4670, ¶ 9, 2015 WL 7075344, *2. If the movant satisfies its initial burden,
then the “party who issued the subpoena fails to show that they have a substantial need for the
material that cannot otherwise be met.” Id.
Page 1 of 10
Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts
CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 2 of 10
Although records held by SCCS pursuant to R.C. § 5153.17 are not privileged, they are
confidential, but that “confidentiality is not absolute.” State ex rel. Renfro v. Cuyahoga County
Dep’t of Human Services, 54 Ohio St. 3d 25, 29 (1990). Access to these records is permissible
upon a showing of “good cause” that outweighs the need for confidentiality. Wiley v. Summit
county Children Services, 9th Dist. No. 23372, 2007-Ohio-1476, ¶ 10.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The minor L.P. was born on February 12, 2019. L.P. suffered permanent neurological
and physical injury because of Defendants’ negligent care surrounding his birth. L.P. has
subsequently been diagnosed with brain damage, fetus affected by placental abruption, kidney
injury, hypoxemic encephalopathy, and spastic quadriparetic cerebral palsy. After L.P.’s birth,
SCCS was granted temporary custody on May 23, 2019.
Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on February 12, 2020 and a GAL, Michael A. Renne,
was appointed to represent the estate of L.P. on April 14, 2020. (Probate Court Case No. 2020
GM 00028 attached as Exhibit C). SCCS was granted permanent custody of LP on May 27,
2020.
As discovery progressed, Plaintiff requested that SCCS provide information and
documents regarding L.P., but SCCS refused to provide all of the information and documents
requested by the parties, claiming that they were confidential. Following a motion hearing, this
court held, “Plaintiffs provided limited discovery responses due to Plaintiffs’ inability to obtain
information, such as the identity of L.P.’s medical providers, because L.P. was in SCCS’
custody.” (Ex B p 2). The Court further held that “Plaintiffs are not relieved of their duty to
Page 2 of 10
Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts
CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 3 of 10
comply with discovery” despite these obstacles, and ordered Plaintiff to “identify all individuals
with whom LP has lived,” and “photographs and videos of LP.” (Ex. B p 5).
Plaintiff’s subpoena to SCCS seeks the information and documents required to comply
with this Court’s 4/1/2022 Order. Plaintiff’s subpoena requests information and documentation
relating to medical records, school records, insurance information, photographs and videos, and
guardians of L.P. since 2/12/2019. (Ex. A p 3). All of this information and documentation is
relevant to Plaintiff's claims and Defendants’ defenses in this matter. The subpoena is the least
burdensome means to obtain that information and documentation and is proportional to the needs
of the case, as there is no other way for the parties to obtain that information and documentation.
Ohio Civ.R. 26.
Before serving the subpoena, Plaintiff’s counsel conferred with SCCS’ counsel regarding
the requested information. Although SCCS appreciated Plaintiff’s position, its counsel stated that
she was unable to produce the requested information and records absent a hearing before the
Court, an in camera inspection of the documents, and this Court’s order denying their motion to
quash.
If this Court denies SCCS’ Motion to Quash, then Plaintiffs request that the Court enter
his Proposed Protective Order to govern the exchange and use of the information and documents.
(Proposed Protective Order attached as Exhibit D). Plaintiffs submitted the proposed protective
order to defense counsel on September 1, 2022. Defense counsel proposed a few red line changes
to the proposed protective order, which are agreed by Plaintiff’s counsel, and defense counsel
agrees in substance with the order. To date, Defense counsel has not filed any opposition to
SCCS’ Motion to Quash nor have they offered their own suggested protective order.
ARGUMENT
Page 3 of 10
Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts
CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 4 of 10
I. The subpoenaed documents and information are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims
and Defendants’ defenses in this matter and a subpoena is the least burdensome
way to obtain those documents and information
Plaintiff’s subpoena to SCCS seeks information and documents that is relevant to
Plaintiff’s claims under the Complaint in this matter. Likewise, Defense counsel have argued to
this Court and through motion that they need the information and documents requested by the
subpoena to defend this case on behalf of Defendants. While SCCS has previously executed
authorizations for L.P.’s medical records and school records, and those records have been
obtained by Plaintiff’s counsel and produced to Defendants, the parties are entitled to discover
the existence of any other medical or school records that are in the possession of SCCS that have
not been produced.
Plaintiff’s subpoena also requests all social service records regarding L.P., but SCCS has
not provided any of those records due to its claim of confidentiality. L.P.’s social service records
are relevant and should be produced because they would contain information regarding L.P.’s
living conditions and placement since his birth, including with whom he has lived.
Plaintiff’s subpoena requests information regarding L.P.’s insurance coverage. Such
information and records would allow Plaintiff to confirm the treatment that L.P. has received and
ensure that all relevant records are requested.
Plaintiff’s subpoena requests photographs and videos of L.P. Those photographs and
video are relevant because they demonstrate L.P.’s growth and condition.
As demonstrated herein, the information and documentation requested by Plaintiff’s
subpoena is relevant to Plaintiff's claims and therefore, should be produced. Plaintiff’s subpoena
is the least burdensome means to obtain that information and documentation and is proportional
to the needs of the case, as there is no other way for the parties to obtain that information and
Page 4 of 10
Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts
CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 5 of 10
documentation. Ohio Civ.R. 26. While Plaintiff’s acknowledge SCCS’s assertions that the
information and documentation may contain protected and confidential information, the
Proposed Protective Order submitted to the Court would protect that information and documents
from being used in any way outside of this litigation.
II. The subpoenaed documents and information are necessary for Plaintiff to
comply with this Court’s 4/1/22 discovery order
Plaintiff agrees with movants that the requested records are not privileged, but are
confidential. See R.C. §§ 515.17, 5109.29(D), and 3107.17. Plaintiffs also agree with movants’
cited authority that the confidentiality of the requested records are not absolute, and this Court
has the authority to deny movant’s Motion to Quash and order the requested records produced.
Moreover, Plaintiff has established “good cause” justifying the issuance of the subpoena.
Plaintiffs were ordered:
1. Produce all of L.P.’s medical records
2. Provide a date for the defense meet and greet with L.P.
3. Identify all individuals with whom L.P. has lived
4. Provide full and complete answers to interrogatories;
5. Produce photographs and videos of L.P.
(Ex. B p 4).
Plaintiff has substantially complied with this Court’s 4/1/22 Order. (Plaintiffs’ Letter to
Magistrate Hom dated 8/25/22 attached as Exhibit E). First, Plaintiff offered a meet and greet
date of August 9, 2022, to the defense. Defense counsel initially agreed, but then demanded any
interaction be recorded, which was a violation of SCCS’s policy. (Ex E p 2). Defense counsel
declined to attend the meet and greet. Id. Should the Court order that photographs and video of
L.P. be produced, it would obviate the need to record the meet and greet.
Second, while Plaintiff has attempted to identify all individuals with whom L.P. has
lived, SCCS is the sole entity with the requested information. Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to
Page 5 of 10
Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts
CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 6 of 10
obtain that information from Attorney Van Horne, Chief Legal counsel for SCCS, on multiple
occasions without success. (Ex. E p 2). Unable to procure the court ordered information
voluntarily, Plaintiffs subpoenaed the requested information from SCCS. (Ex. A p 3).
Plaintiffs have also requested SCCS provide information about the individuals with
whom L.P. has resided and those residential addresses. Attorney Van Horne again demurred,
and Plaintiffs have requested this court-ordered information by subpoena. Id.
Plaintiff needs the subpoenaed information to fully answer Defendant’s interrogatories.
For example, Interrogatory No. 2 requests that Plaintiff identify L.P.’s current residence address,
with whom he resides, and their relationship to L.P. Plaintiff needs the subpoenaed information
to provide a full and complete answers to this interrogatory and others.
Lastly, Plaintiff has subpoenaed SCCS to provide “any photographs, videos, or other
recordings of Levi Patterson since 2/12/2019.” (Ex. A p 3). This information was ordered by
the Court and Plaintiff needs the subpoenaed documents to comply with the Court’s order.
Since the subpoenaed documents are necessary for Plaintiff’s compliance with this
Court’s 4/1/22 discovery order, Plaintiff has demonstrated “good cause” justifying the issuance
of the subpoena and compliance therewith.
III. Movants have not established that any confidential information to be produced
pursuant to the subpoena lacks “good cause” or how it would not be adequately
protected by a protective order
Movants identified three classes of information that they aim not to publicly disclose.
Each argument is without merit and, moreover, each concern can be sated by a protective order.
Movants request that this Court quash any disclosure of the “name, residential address,
and contact information for persons who have lived” with L.P. because those persons are foster
parents. In support of this request, movants claim that such information is not a public record.
Page 6 of 10
Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts
CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 7 of 10
Plaintiff agrees this information is not a public record and have not filed a public records request.
Instead, Plaintiff has served a subpoena supported by good cause requesting information and
documents that are relevant and needed to comply with a court order.
Movant suggests that “information on the public docket that identifies the child’s foster
parent(s) or potential adoptive parent(s) could jeopardize the safety and privacy of the child and
families, . . . and “could even lead to a placement disruption. . .” (Motion to Quash pp 3-4).
Thus, Plaintiff moves that this Court enter its Proposed Protective Order that prohibits any public
disclosure or dissemination of this information. (Ex. D). The confidentiality of this information
is not absolute, and this Court has the authority to craft a protective order that addresses SCCS’
concerns and permits Plaintiff to obtain the necessary information to comply with this Court’s
discovery orders. Confidentiality is not absolute and therefore the subpoena should be enforced.
State ex rel. Renfro v. Cuyahoga County Dep’t of Human Services, 54 Ohio St. 3d 25, 29 (1990)
(confidentiality is not absolute).
Movant also requested that this Court quash the subpoena insofar as it requests medical
records and bills. (Motion to Quash p 4). Here, SCCS argues that it provided executed releases
and that such releases should be sufficient. Indeed, Plaintiff has provided all medical records
obtained in response to the releases. However, Plaintiff does not have what he does not control,
and Plaintiff is still bound by this Court’s order that directed Plaintiff to produce all medical
records and bills regarding L.P. That information is in SCCS’ possession and Plaintiff needs this
information and documentation to comply with this Court’s discovery order.
Lastly, Movants requested that this Court quash the subpoena insofar as it seeks
disclosure of investigations relating to children performed by public children services agencies
(“PCSA”) that are confidential. Plaintiff agrees that any such records are confidential, but such
Page 7 of 10
Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts
CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 8 of 10
confidentiality is not absolute. These records may be disclosed upon a showing of “good cause.”
(Motion to Quash p 4). Plaintiff agrees with SCCS that the Court should examine these records
in camera, and order production of any records that are relevant to this action.
Complying with this Court’s discovery order is “good cause.” The Court has ordered
Plaintiff to produce specific information in discovery and the subpoenaed information is
necessary for compliance. In addition, producing the information is within the best interests of
the child. L.P. has suffered permanent neurological damage and brain damage. The instant
lawsuit will ensure L.P.’s medical care and expenses are paid and are not an additional fiscal
burden borne by foster or adoptive parents or the State of Ohio.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court deny Movant’s Motion to
Quash subpoena served upon SCCS. Good cause exists for production of the subpoenaed
information and documents because the they are relevant and necessary for Plaintiff’s
compliance with this Court’s discovery orders. In addition, Movants have not established that
any undue burden or confidentiality cannot be mitigated by the Proposed Protective Order.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Edward J. Aucoin, Jr.__
Lisa B. Weinstein **
IL State Bar No. 6290253
Edward J. Aucoin, Jr. **
IL State Bar No. 6256645
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
30 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2350
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 610-5350
L. Weinstein email: lweinstein@gelaw.com
E. Aucoin email: eaucoin@gelaw.com
**Admitted Pro hac vice
Page 8 of 10
Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts
CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 9 of 10
Pamela Pantages, Esq. (0046840)
Nurenberg Paris Heller & McCarthy, LPA
600 Superior Avenue East, Suite 1200
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Tel: (216) 621-2300
Fax: (216) 771-2242
ppantages@nphm.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
Page 9 of 10
Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts
CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 10 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The foregoing was sent via the Summit County Clerk of Court’s electronic filing system
and by courtesy e-mail on this 14th day of September, 2022 to:
Gregory T. Rossi. Esq.
Hanna Campbell & Powell, LLP
3737 Embassy Parkway
Suite 100
Akron, Ohio 44333
Phone: (330) 670-7600
Email: grossi@hcplaw.net
Attorney for Defendants, Summa Health d/b/a Summa Health System-Akron Campus,
Cheryl Johnson, M.D., Ashley Ballester, M.D., Meredith Bellamy, D.O., and Summa
Physicians d/b/a Summa Medical Group
Catherine P. Van Horne
Deputy Executive Director/ Chief Legal Counsel
Summit County Children Services
264 S. Arlington Street
Akron, Ohio 44306
Phone: (330) 379-2002
Email: catherine.pomeroy-vanhorne@summitkids.org
/s/ Edward J. Aucoin, Jr._______
Edward J. Aucoin, Jr., Esq.
Page 10 of 10
Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts
Preview
CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 1 of 10 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SUMMIT COUNTY, OHIO MICHAEL A. RENNE, as Guardian of the ) CASE NO. CV-2020-02-0578 Estate of L.P., a minor, ) ) JUDGE MARY MARGARET ROWLANDS Plaintiff, ) ) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO SUMMIT vs. ) COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES’ ) MOTION TO QUASH SUMMA HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) NOW COMES the Plaintiff, MICHAEL A. RENNE, as Guardian of the Estate of L.P., a minor, pursuant to Civ. R. 26 and Civ. R. 45, and hereby moves that this Honorable Court deny non-party Summit County Children Services’ (“SCCS”) Motion to Quash. As reasons therefore, Plaintiffs submit that the subpoenaed information is relevant and material to Plaintiff’s claims in this matter and is necessary for Plaintiff to comply with this Court’s previous order dated 4/1/2022. (Subpoena to SCCS attached as Exhibit A) (4/1/2022 Court Order attached as Exhibit B). Moreover, Plaintiff and SCCS have conferred and agreed on a protective order that protects the interests of all parties and non-parties. In further support, Plaintiffs submit as follows: STANDARD OF REVIEW Under Civ. R. 45(C)(3)(d), a trial court may quash or modify a subpoena if the subpoena requires disclosure of privileged or otherwise protected matter or subjects the custodian to an undue burden. The movant bears the initial burden of establishing undue burden. McDade v. Morris, 2015-Ohio-4670, ¶ 9, 2015 WL 7075344, *2. If the movant satisfies its initial burden, then the “party who issued the subpoena fails to show that they have a substantial need for the material that cannot otherwise be met.” Id. Page 1 of 10 Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 2 of 10 Although records held by SCCS pursuant to R.C. § 5153.17 are not privileged, they are confidential, but that “confidentiality is not absolute.” State ex rel. Renfro v. Cuyahoga County Dep’t of Human Services, 54 Ohio St. 3d 25, 29 (1990). Access to these records is permissible upon a showing of “good cause” that outweighs the need for confidentiality. Wiley v. Summit county Children Services, 9th Dist. No. 23372, 2007-Ohio-1476, ¶ 10. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The minor L.P. was born on February 12, 2019. L.P. suffered permanent neurological and physical injury because of Defendants’ negligent care surrounding his birth. L.P. has subsequently been diagnosed with brain damage, fetus affected by placental abruption, kidney injury, hypoxemic encephalopathy, and spastic quadriparetic cerebral palsy. After L.P.’s birth, SCCS was granted temporary custody on May 23, 2019. Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on February 12, 2020 and a GAL, Michael A. Renne, was appointed to represent the estate of L.P. on April 14, 2020. (Probate Court Case No. 2020 GM 00028 attached as Exhibit C). SCCS was granted permanent custody of LP on May 27, 2020. As discovery progressed, Plaintiff requested that SCCS provide information and documents regarding L.P., but SCCS refused to provide all of the information and documents requested by the parties, claiming that they were confidential. Following a motion hearing, this court held, “Plaintiffs provided limited discovery responses due to Plaintiffs’ inability to obtain information, such as the identity of L.P.’s medical providers, because L.P. was in SCCS’ custody.” (Ex B p 2). The Court further held that “Plaintiffs are not relieved of their duty to Page 2 of 10 Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 3 of 10 comply with discovery” despite these obstacles, and ordered Plaintiff to “identify all individuals with whom LP has lived,” and “photographs and videos of LP.” (Ex. B p 5). Plaintiff’s subpoena to SCCS seeks the information and documents required to comply with this Court’s 4/1/2022 Order. Plaintiff’s subpoena requests information and documentation relating to medical records, school records, insurance information, photographs and videos, and guardians of L.P. since 2/12/2019. (Ex. A p 3). All of this information and documentation is relevant to Plaintiff's claims and Defendants’ defenses in this matter. The subpoena is the least burdensome means to obtain that information and documentation and is proportional to the needs of the case, as there is no other way for the parties to obtain that information and documentation. Ohio Civ.R. 26. Before serving the subpoena, Plaintiff’s counsel conferred with SCCS’ counsel regarding the requested information. Although SCCS appreciated Plaintiff’s position, its counsel stated that she was unable to produce the requested information and records absent a hearing before the Court, an in camera inspection of the documents, and this Court’s order denying their motion to quash. If this Court denies SCCS’ Motion to Quash, then Plaintiffs request that the Court enter his Proposed Protective Order to govern the exchange and use of the information and documents. (Proposed Protective Order attached as Exhibit D). Plaintiffs submitted the proposed protective order to defense counsel on September 1, 2022. Defense counsel proposed a few red line changes to the proposed protective order, which are agreed by Plaintiff’s counsel, and defense counsel agrees in substance with the order. To date, Defense counsel has not filed any opposition to SCCS’ Motion to Quash nor have they offered their own suggested protective order. ARGUMENT Page 3 of 10 Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 4 of 10 I. The subpoenaed documents and information are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and Defendants’ defenses in this matter and a subpoena is the least burdensome way to obtain those documents and information Plaintiff’s subpoena to SCCS seeks information and documents that is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims under the Complaint in this matter. Likewise, Defense counsel have argued to this Court and through motion that they need the information and documents requested by the subpoena to defend this case on behalf of Defendants. While SCCS has previously executed authorizations for L.P.’s medical records and school records, and those records have been obtained by Plaintiff’s counsel and produced to Defendants, the parties are entitled to discover the existence of any other medical or school records that are in the possession of SCCS that have not been produced. Plaintiff’s subpoena also requests all social service records regarding L.P., but SCCS has not provided any of those records due to its claim of confidentiality. L.P.’s social service records are relevant and should be produced because they would contain information regarding L.P.’s living conditions and placement since his birth, including with whom he has lived. Plaintiff’s subpoena requests information regarding L.P.’s insurance coverage. Such information and records would allow Plaintiff to confirm the treatment that L.P. has received and ensure that all relevant records are requested. Plaintiff’s subpoena requests photographs and videos of L.P. Those photographs and video are relevant because they demonstrate L.P.’s growth and condition. As demonstrated herein, the information and documentation requested by Plaintiff’s subpoena is relevant to Plaintiff's claims and therefore, should be produced. Plaintiff’s subpoena is the least burdensome means to obtain that information and documentation and is proportional to the needs of the case, as there is no other way for the parties to obtain that information and Page 4 of 10 Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 5 of 10 documentation. Ohio Civ.R. 26. While Plaintiff’s acknowledge SCCS’s assertions that the information and documentation may contain protected and confidential information, the Proposed Protective Order submitted to the Court would protect that information and documents from being used in any way outside of this litigation. II. The subpoenaed documents and information are necessary for Plaintiff to comply with this Court’s 4/1/22 discovery order Plaintiff agrees with movants that the requested records are not privileged, but are confidential. See R.C. §§ 515.17, 5109.29(D), and 3107.17. Plaintiffs also agree with movants’ cited authority that the confidentiality of the requested records are not absolute, and this Court has the authority to deny movant’s Motion to Quash and order the requested records produced. Moreover, Plaintiff has established “good cause” justifying the issuance of the subpoena. Plaintiffs were ordered: 1. Produce all of L.P.’s medical records 2. Provide a date for the defense meet and greet with L.P. 3. Identify all individuals with whom L.P. has lived 4. Provide full and complete answers to interrogatories; 5. Produce photographs and videos of L.P. (Ex. B p 4). Plaintiff has substantially complied with this Court’s 4/1/22 Order. (Plaintiffs’ Letter to Magistrate Hom dated 8/25/22 attached as Exhibit E). First, Plaintiff offered a meet and greet date of August 9, 2022, to the defense. Defense counsel initially agreed, but then demanded any interaction be recorded, which was a violation of SCCS’s policy. (Ex E p 2). Defense counsel declined to attend the meet and greet. Id. Should the Court order that photographs and video of L.P. be produced, it would obviate the need to record the meet and greet. Second, while Plaintiff has attempted to identify all individuals with whom L.P. has lived, SCCS is the sole entity with the requested information. Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to Page 5 of 10 Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 6 of 10 obtain that information from Attorney Van Horne, Chief Legal counsel for SCCS, on multiple occasions without success. (Ex. E p 2). Unable to procure the court ordered information voluntarily, Plaintiffs subpoenaed the requested information from SCCS. (Ex. A p 3). Plaintiffs have also requested SCCS provide information about the individuals with whom L.P. has resided and those residential addresses. Attorney Van Horne again demurred, and Plaintiffs have requested this court-ordered information by subpoena. Id. Plaintiff needs the subpoenaed information to fully answer Defendant’s interrogatories. For example, Interrogatory No. 2 requests that Plaintiff identify L.P.’s current residence address, with whom he resides, and their relationship to L.P. Plaintiff needs the subpoenaed information to provide a full and complete answers to this interrogatory and others. Lastly, Plaintiff has subpoenaed SCCS to provide “any photographs, videos, or other recordings of Levi Patterson since 2/12/2019.” (Ex. A p 3). This information was ordered by the Court and Plaintiff needs the subpoenaed documents to comply with the Court’s order. Since the subpoenaed documents are necessary for Plaintiff’s compliance with this Court’s 4/1/22 discovery order, Plaintiff has demonstrated “good cause” justifying the issuance of the subpoena and compliance therewith. III. Movants have not established that any confidential information to be produced pursuant to the subpoena lacks “good cause” or how it would not be adequately protected by a protective order Movants identified three classes of information that they aim not to publicly disclose. Each argument is without merit and, moreover, each concern can be sated by a protective order. Movants request that this Court quash any disclosure of the “name, residential address, and contact information for persons who have lived” with L.P. because those persons are foster parents. In support of this request, movants claim that such information is not a public record. Page 6 of 10 Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 7 of 10 Plaintiff agrees this information is not a public record and have not filed a public records request. Instead, Plaintiff has served a subpoena supported by good cause requesting information and documents that are relevant and needed to comply with a court order. Movant suggests that “information on the public docket that identifies the child’s foster parent(s) or potential adoptive parent(s) could jeopardize the safety and privacy of the child and families, . . . and “could even lead to a placement disruption. . .” (Motion to Quash pp 3-4). Thus, Plaintiff moves that this Court enter its Proposed Protective Order that prohibits any public disclosure or dissemination of this information. (Ex. D). The confidentiality of this information is not absolute, and this Court has the authority to craft a protective order that addresses SCCS’ concerns and permits Plaintiff to obtain the necessary information to comply with this Court’s discovery orders. Confidentiality is not absolute and therefore the subpoena should be enforced. State ex rel. Renfro v. Cuyahoga County Dep’t of Human Services, 54 Ohio St. 3d 25, 29 (1990) (confidentiality is not absolute). Movant also requested that this Court quash the subpoena insofar as it requests medical records and bills. (Motion to Quash p 4). Here, SCCS argues that it provided executed releases and that such releases should be sufficient. Indeed, Plaintiff has provided all medical records obtained in response to the releases. However, Plaintiff does not have what he does not control, and Plaintiff is still bound by this Court’s order that directed Plaintiff to produce all medical records and bills regarding L.P. That information is in SCCS’ possession and Plaintiff needs this information and documentation to comply with this Court’s discovery order. Lastly, Movants requested that this Court quash the subpoena insofar as it seeks disclosure of investigations relating to children performed by public children services agencies (“PCSA”) that are confidential. Plaintiff agrees that any such records are confidential, but such Page 7 of 10 Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 8 of 10 confidentiality is not absolute. These records may be disclosed upon a showing of “good cause.” (Motion to Quash p 4). Plaintiff agrees with SCCS that the Court should examine these records in camera, and order production of any records that are relevant to this action. Complying with this Court’s discovery order is “good cause.” The Court has ordered Plaintiff to produce specific information in discovery and the subpoenaed information is necessary for compliance. In addition, producing the information is within the best interests of the child. L.P. has suffered permanent neurological damage and brain damage. The instant lawsuit will ensure L.P.’s medical care and expenses are paid and are not an additional fiscal burden borne by foster or adoptive parents or the State of Ohio. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court deny Movant’s Motion to Quash subpoena served upon SCCS. Good cause exists for production of the subpoenaed information and documents because the they are relevant and necessary for Plaintiff’s compliance with this Court’s discovery orders. In addition, Movants have not established that any undue burden or confidentiality cannot be mitigated by the Proposed Protective Order. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Edward J. Aucoin, Jr.__ Lisa B. Weinstein ** IL State Bar No. 6290253 Edward J. Aucoin, Jr. ** IL State Bar No. 6256645 GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 30 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2350 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 610-5350 L. Weinstein email: lweinstein@gelaw.com E. Aucoin email: eaucoin@gelaw.com **Admitted Pro hac vice Page 8 of 10 Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 9 of 10 Pamela Pantages, Esq. (0046840) Nurenberg Paris Heller & McCarthy, LPA 600 Superior Avenue East, Suite 1200 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Tel: (216) 621-2300 Fax: (216) 771-2242 ppantages@nphm.com Counsel for Plaintiff Page 9 of 10 Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts CV-2020-02-0578 ROWLANDS, MARY MARGARET 09/14/2022 12:55:48 PM MOPP Page 10 of 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing was sent via the Summit County Clerk of Court’s electronic filing system and by courtesy e-mail on this 14th day of September, 2022 to: Gregory T. Rossi. Esq. Hanna Campbell & Powell, LLP 3737 Embassy Parkway Suite 100 Akron, Ohio 44333 Phone: (330) 670-7600 Email: grossi@hcplaw.net Attorney for Defendants, Summa Health d/b/a Summa Health System-Akron Campus, Cheryl Johnson, M.D., Ashley Ballester, M.D., Meredith Bellamy, D.O., and Summa Physicians d/b/a Summa Medical Group Catherine P. Van Horne Deputy Executive Director/ Chief Legal Counsel Summit County Children Services 264 S. Arlington Street Akron, Ohio 44306 Phone: (330) 379-2002 Email: catherine.pomeroy-vanhorne@summitkids.org /s/ Edward J. Aucoin, Jr._______ Edward J. Aucoin, Jr., Esq. Page 10 of 10 Sandra Kurt, Summit County Clerk of Courts