## Facts

- Midland Steel Products Co. operated a manufacturing plant in Cleveland, Ohio, where UAW Local 486 represented production and maintenance employees.
- On June 2, 1989, union members began a strike and picketed at the plant.
- Midland filed suit in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas alleging mass picketing, violence, trespass, and interference with operations, and sought injunctive relief.
- The trial court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against named defendants and “any and all persons acting in concert with any of them,” restricting intimidation, obstruction of entrances, violence, trespass, vehicle obstruction, and limiting pickets to two per plant entrance.
- The TRO was personally served on some named defendants and was also delivered to the union hall, circulated among union leadership, posted, and reported in a local newspaper.
- Several union members who were not named in the TRO were later charged with criminal indirect contempt for violating the TRO’s restrictions during picketing.
- The unnamed members argued they were not personally served and lacked knowledge of the TRO’s specific terms.
- The trial court found the unnamed members guilty of criminal indirect contempt, and the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Under Ohio Civ.R. 65(D), when may an injunction bind a nonparty or unnamed individual alleged to be acting in concert with enjoined parties?
2. For criminal indirect contempt, must the prosecution prove the alleged contemnor intended to defy the court?
3. Under the “silent witness” theory, what foundation is required to admit photographic evidence without an eyewitness sponsoring it?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the court of appeals to the extent it upheld criminal contempt findings against unnamed union members.
- The court held that a nonparty aider and abettor is bound under Civ.R. 65(D) only if the person had actual notice of the terms of the order, by personal service or otherwise.
- The court held that criminal indirect contempt requires proof that the alleged contemnor intended to defy the court.
- The court held that photographic evidence may be admitted under the silent witness theory upon a sufficient showing that the process or system producing the images was reliable.
- Applying these rules, the record did not establish actual notice of the TRO’s terms and intent to defy as to the unnamed members; their contempt convictions could not stand on that record.

## Legal Principles

- An injunction binds parties and specified affiliates, and also persons in active concert or participation with them, but contempt sanctions against a nonparty require proof of the nonparty’s actual notice of the order’s terms (by personal service or otherwise).
- In criminal indirect contempt, the state must prove a willful violation: the alleged contemnor must have intended to defy the court’s authority.
- Knowledge of an order’s existence or generalized publicity about litigation is insufficient, without proof of actual notice of the order’s terms, to support criminal contempt against an unnamed person.
- Photographic evidence may be authenticated without an eyewitness if the proponent establishes the reliability of the recording process or system (including safeguards showing the images are what they purport to be).

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court limited criminal contempt liability for unnamed strike participants by requiring proof of actual notice of an injunction’s terms and intent to defy the court, and it approved admitting photographic evidence based on the reliability of the recording system rather than eyewitness sponsorship.


Midland Steel Prods. Co. v. Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., Loc. 486, 61 Ohio St. 3d 121, 573 N.E.2d 98 (1991)