## Facts

- Hundreds of asbestos personal-injury suits were filed in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas; one judge was assigned to manage the related cases and entered discovery orders intended to apply across them.
- The judge issued a protective order regulating deposition conduct, including prohibitions on “speaking objections,” witness coaching, and attorney-witness conferences during depositions except to decide whether to assert a privilege.
- A document from an out-of-state asbestos deposition, labeled “Preparing for Your Deposition/Attorney Work Product,” was disclosed and described as advising witnesses how to tailor testimony and how counsel would suggest answers.
- A defendant in the Butler County litigation moved to compel discovery and sought relief, asserting that plaintiffs had been coached through similar materials.
- After a hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledged the memo was improper but denied that it or similar materials were used in the Ohio cases.
- The judge imposed sanctions effectively requiring, upon request, jury instructions treating specified “witness preparation” propositions as conclusively proved (including that attorneys provided product-identification materials and advised plaintiffs it was advantageous to name as many products as possible).
- The judge also directed that the same instruction be given in any other asbestos litigation in which counsel prevented court-ordered discovery of improper coaching techniques.
- The workers filed an original action seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of the judge’s discovery and sanction orders; the court of appeals dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the workers appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the relators stated a claim for a writ of prohibition by alleging the trial judge was exercising judicial power without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing and enforcing discovery and sanction orders.
2. Whether prohibition could issue despite the availability of appellate review, including whether the judge’s asserted overreach amounted to a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed dismissal of the prohibition action for failure to state a claim.
- The court held the judge did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to issue discovery-related orders and sanctions in cases within the common pleas court’s general civil jurisdiction.
- The court held the relators had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law, primarily appeal after final judgment, to challenge alleged errors in discovery rulings, sanctions, and jury instructions.

## Legal Principles

- A writ of prohibition prevents a court from exercising judicial or quasi-judicial power when (1) the court is about to exercise or is exercising such power, (2) the exercise is unauthorized by law, and (3) denial of the writ will cause injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law.
- Prohibition generally will not issue when an adequate legal remedy (such as appeal) exists, unless the lower court’s lack of jurisdiction is patent and unambiguous.
- Alleged errors or abuses of discretion in discovery management and discovery sanctions typically are not jurisdictional defects; they are reviewable through the normal appellate process.
- Prohibition is not a substitute for appeal and cannot be used as a generalized mechanism to supervise or halt a trial court’s ongoing discovery administration across a docket of related cases.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court held that extraordinary relief was unavailable because the trial judge’s discovery and sanction orders were not a patent jurisdictional usurpation and because the workers could contest any alleged overbreadth or error through ordinary appellate review in the underlying asbestos cases.


State ex rel. Abner v. Elliott, 85 Ohio St. 3d 11, 706 N.E.2d 765 (Ohio 1999)