Advance Wire Forming, Inc. et al v. Stein

Filing 260

Memorandum Opinion and Order: For the reasons stated in this Order, Mr. ONeill's Motion to Quash Subpoena (Doc. No. 244 ) is GRANTED. Judge Pamela A. Barker on 10/5/2022. (P,K)

Case: 1:18-cv-00723-PAB Doc #: 260 Filed: 10/05/22 1 of 3. PageID #: 9805

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Advance Wire Forming, Inc.,
et al.,
-vs-

Plaintiffs,

Jeffrey Stein, et al.,

Case No. 1:18cv723
JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER

ORDER
Defendants

Currently pending is the Motion of Non-Party James P. O’Neill to Quash Subpoena. (Doc.
No. 244.) Defendants Jeffrey Stein and Plastic and Products Marketing, LLC filed a Brief in
Opposition to Mr. O’Neill’s Motion on October 4, 2022. (Doc. No. 257.) Plaintiffs Advance Wire
Forming, Inc., Advance Industries Group, LLC, AIG Holdings, LLC, and James Williams filed a
Response to Mr. O’Neill’s Motion on that same date. (Doc. No. 255.) For the following reasons, Mr.
O’Neill’s Motion to Quash (Doc. No. 244) is granted.
Mr. O’Neill previously served as corporate counsel for Plaintiffs from approximately June
2006 through October 2015. (Doc. No. 244 at p. 1.) On September 26, 2022, Defendants issued a
Subpoena to Mr. O’Neill to appear and testify at the trial in this matter, which is set to begin on
October 11, 2022. (Doc. No. 244-3.)
In his Motion, Mr. O’Neill states that Defendants’ subpoena should be quashed because his
testimony would violate the attorney-client privilege and Plaintiffs have not waived the privilege.
(Doc. No. 244-1 at p. 6-8.) He further argues that, to the extent Defendants seek to question him
regarding his personal observations of Defendant Stein’s mental or physical health in 2015, such

Case: 1:18-cv-00723-PAB Doc #: 260 Filed: 10/05/22 2 of 3. PageID #: 9806

testimony is (1) not relevant; (2) protected by the work product doctrine; and (3) obtainable by less
obtrusive means, including Stein’s own medical records. (Id. at p. 9.) Plaintiffs agree with each of
Mr. O’Neill’s arguments. (Doc. No. 255.)
Defendants emphasize that they intend to conduct an “extremely limited examination” of Mr.
O’Neill regarding a meeting between Defendant Stein and Mr. O’Neill the night before Stein entered
the hospital for treatment of various mental health issues. (Doc. No. 257 at p. 4.) Specifically,
Defendants indicate that they intend to ask Mr. O’Neill regarding his personal observations of
“Stein’s manner and bearings” on that evening in order to refute Plaintiffs’ anticipated argument that
Stein “faked” his mental breakdown. (Id.) Defendants argue that their intended questions do not call
for information protected by either the attorney client privilege or the work product doctrine and are
relevant to defending against Plaintiffs’ claims. (Id.)
For the following reasons, Mr. O’Neill’s Motion to Quash is granted. The Court questions
the necessity of Mr. O’Neill’s anticipated testimony. As both Mr. O’Neill and Plaintiffs correctly
note, evidence regarding Stein’s physical and mental state when he entered the hospital in July 2015
can be elicited via less obtrusive means that do not carry the potential for violating the attorney-client
privilege and/or work product doctrine. Specifically, the parties have stipulated to the authenticity of
Stein’s medical/psychiatric records from Lutheran Hospital for his in-patient treatment from July 18
to 24, 2015, which document his physical and mental health during this time period. Additionally,
Plaintiffs state (and Defendants do not contest) that Stein’s son, Michael, was in town and in
communication with his father during this same time period. Thus, Defendants have ample other
means by which to introduce evidence regarding Stein’s “manner,” “bearing,” and mental health
issues in July 2015.
2

Case: 1:18-cv-00723-PAB Doc #: 260 Filed: 10/05/22 3 of 3. PageID #: 9807

Accordingly, Mr. O’Neill’s Motion to Quash Subpoena (Doc. No. 244) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Pamela A. Barker
PAMELA A. BARKER
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: October 5, 2022

3