State ex rel. Butler Cty. Children Serv. Bd. v. Sage - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

[Cite as State ex rel. Butler Cty. Children Serv. Bd. v. Sage, 95 Ohio St.3d 23, 2002-Ohio-
1494.]

THE STATE EX REL. BUTLER COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES BOARD,
APPELLANT, v. SAGE, JUDGE, APPELLEE.
[Cite as State ex rel. Butler Cty. Children Serv. Bd. v. Sage (2002), 95 Ohio
St.3d 23.]
Mandamus sought to direct common pleas court judge not to disclose child
abuse records -- Dismissal of complaint affirmed.
(No. 01-1668 -- Submitted February 5, 2002 -- Decided April 3, 2002.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Butler County, No. CA2001-07-164.
__________________

Per Curiam. In May 1999, James Hughes, Sharon Hughes, and their
minor daughter, Mary Hughes, filed a complaint in the Butler County Court of
Common Pleas alleging that appellant, Butler County Children Services Board
("BCCSB"), and certain of its employees had committed defamation and various
other tortious acts. The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel BCCSB and the other
defendants to produce a protective-service referral form that BCCSB claimed was
privileged. The form included child-abuse allegations. The plaintiffs
alternatively requested that the common pleas court conduct an in camera
inspection of the form to determine whether it was privileged.
After
conducting
an
in camera inspection of the form, appellee, Butler
County Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael Sage, granted the motion to
compel disclosure of the form by entry dated July 12, 2001. The entry did not
contain a Civ.R. 54(B) express determination of no just reason for delay.

On July 16, 2001, BCCSB filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for
Butler County for a writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, a writ of prohibition
"directing the court not to disclose the child abuse records." On July 18, 2001,
the court of appeals ordered Judge Sage not to release the form until August 2001

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
so that BCCSB's writ action could be resolved before that time. As the writ
action proceeded, BCCSB and the other defendants in the underlying action filed
a notice of appeal from Judge Sage's July 12 entry.

On August 1, 2001, the court of appeals dismissed the writ action. The
court of appeals reasoned that BCCSB had an adequate remedy by appeal to
challenge Judge Sage's July 12 entry. This cause is now before the court upon
BCCSB's appeal as of right.

In its sole proposition of law, BCCSB contends that Judge Sage's July 12,
2001 entry ordering BCCSB to release its confidential records during discovery
"is an order which is subject to an action in mandamus to challenge its validity."
In the conclusion of its appellate brief, BCCSB claimed that "[a] reversal will
allow the Appellants to pursue an action in mandamus to challenge the validity of
the trial court's order." On appeal, BCCSB does not appear to specifically claim
that the court of appeals' dismissal of its prohibition claim was erroneous.

Regarding BCCSB's mandamus claim, it requested a writ of mandamus
"directing the [common pleas] court not to disclose the child abuse records." "
`In general, if the allegations of a complaint for a writ of mandamus indicate that
the real objects sought are a declaratory judgment and a prohibitory injunction,
the complaint does not state a cause of action in mandamus and must be dismissed
for want of jurisdiction.' " State ex rel. Phillips v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections
(2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 535, 537, 757 N.E.2d 319, quoting State ex rel. Grendell v.
Davidson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 629, 634, 716 N.E.2d 704; State ex rel. Walker v.
Bowling Green (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 391, 392, 632 N.E.2d 904. BCCSB's
mandamus claim is merely an ill-disguised request for prohibitory injunctive
relief, i.e., to prevent Judge Sage from disclosing the child abuse records.
Therefore, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction and properly dismissed the
2

January Term, 2002
mandamus claim. See State ex rel. Forsyth v. Brigner (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 71,
72, 711 N.E.2d 684.1

Moreover, even if BCCSB's argument here were sufficiently broad to
encompass its prohibition claim, dismissal is additionally warranted for the
following reasons.

As we have consistently held, " `trial courts have the requisite jurisdiction
to decide issues of privilege; thus extraordinary relief in prohibition will not lie to
correct any errors in decisions of these issues.' " State ex rel. Abner v. Elliott
(1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 11, 16, 706 N.E.2d 765, 769, quoting State ex rel. Herdman
v. Watson (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 537, 538, 700 N.E.2d 1270; State ex rel.
Children's Med. Ctr. v. Brown (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 194, 196, 571 N.E.2d 724;
Rath v. Williamson (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 419, 583 N.E.2d 1308.

Finally, BCCSB has an adequate remedy by immediate appeal of Judge
Sage's July 12, 2001 entry and a motion to stay the order pending appeal. Neither
prohibition nor mandamus will issue if the relator has an adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Shimko v. McMonagle (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d
426, 428, 751 N.E.2d 472.

Notwithstanding BCCSB's claims to the contrary, the July 12, 2001 entry
that granted the provisional remedy ordering the discovery of the allegedly
privileged record did not need to comply with Civ.R. 54(B) to constitute a final
appealable order. A provisional remedy is a remedy other than a claim for relief.
Therefore, an order granting or denying a provisional remedy is not subject to the
requirements of Civ.R. 54(B). Bob Krihwan Pontiac-GMC Truck, Inc. v. Gen.
Motors Corp. (2001), 141 Ohio App.3d 777, 781-782, 753 N.E.2d 864; Premier
Health Care Serv., Inc. v. Schneiderman (Aug. 21, 2001), Montgomery App. No.

1.
Even assuming that BCCSB is correct that the court of appeals erred in its specified
rationale for dismissal, this would not require reversal. See Johnson v. Timmerman-Cooper
(2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 614, 616, 757 N.E.2d 1153 ("we will not reverse a correct judgment based
on an appellate court's erroneous rationale").
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
18795, unreported, 2001 WL 1479241; but, cf., Chambers v. Chambers (2000),
137 Ohio App.3d 355, 360, 738 N.E.2d 834.

Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed BCCSB's
action, and we affirm its judgment.
Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________

Jack C. McGowan & Associates and Jack C. McGowan, for appellant.
__________________
4