In re A.M.

Summary

The Ninth District Court of Appeals of Ohio reversed the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas order denying A.M.’s motion to quash a subpoena for privileged counseling records. The appellate court held that the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing under Criminal Rule 17(C) and the standards described in In re Subpoena Duces Tecum Served Upon Attorney Potts before ordering production for in camera review. A.M.’s second assignment of error was sustained, while the first assignment was deemed premature, and the matter was remanded.

Holdings

1. When a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum is filed under Criminal Rule 17(C), the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing at which the subpoena's proponent bears the burden of demonstrating that compliance is not unreasonable or oppressive. The trial court erred by denying A.M.'s motion to quash the second subpoena without conducting that hearing.
2. The challenge to the trial court's privilege and constitutional analysis was premature because the trial court had not first conducted the required evidentiary hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Criminal Rule 17(C) requires the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum before ordering production of counseling records.
2. Whether the trial court applied the proper privilege and constitutional analysis to the subpoena for A.M.'s counseling records.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded