Knight et al v. The Ohio State University

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
STEVE SNYDER-HILL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.
Civil Action 2:23-cv-2993
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M.
Vascura
WILLIAM KNIGHT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.
Civil Action 2:23-cv-2994
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M.
Vascura
EDWARD GONZALES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITT,
Defendant.
Civil Action 2:23-cv-3051
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M.
Vascura
Case: 2:23-cv-02994-MHW-CMV Doc #: 129 Filed: 03/20/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs move to compel production of the unredacted Medical Board file
for Case 96-1534A. Snyder-Hill v. The Ohio State University, Case No. 2:23-cv-
2993, EOF No. 146. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED
In 1996, Ohio State Medical Board staff opened Case No. 96-1534A to
investigate complaints against Dr. Richard Strauss. Years later, the Medical
Board provided an unredacted copy of the investigation file to Defendant The
Ohio State University ("OSU"). In 2019, OSU sought leave to publicly release the
unredacted file, "provided that the names of former patients and non-Ohio State
complainants and witnesses, and other information which might identify such
individuals, are redacted from the investigation report before it is publicly
released. " Snyder-Hill et al v. The Ohio State University, Case No. 2:18-cv-736,
ECF No. 52. Plaintiffs did not oppose OSU's motion. The Board appeared as an
interested party and argued that Ohio Revised Code § 4731. 22(F)(5) prohibited
the public release of confidential information. See id., ECF No. 60. The Court
denied OSU's motion, noting that § 4731. 22(F)(5) affirmatively permits
investigation reports to be admitted into evidence in judicial proceedings under
certain circumstances. See id., ECF No. 89. As the Court explained:
Ohio State is not, at least at this time, seeking to use the independent
investigation report as evidence in this judicial proceeding. Instead,
Ohio State wishes to release the report publicly in order to be
transparent in its investigation. While the Court believes transparency
is a laudable goal in this matter, the Court is not in a position to grant
Ohio State the permission it seeks.
Case No. 2:23-cv-2993; 2:23-cv-2994; 2:23-cv-3051 Page 2 of 4
Case: 2:23-cv-02994-MHW-CMV Doc #: 129 Filed: 03/20/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Id. at PAGEID ## 559-60 (emphasis added).
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that circumstances have changed since
OSU sought leave to publicly release the file in 2019. For one thing, the Medical
Board has waived its confidentiality interest in the file under § 4731. 22(F)(5).
Medical Board's Amicus Brief, ECF No. 179; May 23, 2019, Minutes, ECF No.
179-1. For another, Plaintiffs are now seeking the file under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 34 to use the file in litigation, such that § 4731. 22(F)(5)'s judicial-
proceedings exception is triggered.
Moreover, state confidentiality statutes are of limited relevance in the first
place in this federal case concerning a federal question. See Reg'l Airport Auth.
of Louisville v. LFG, LLC, 460 F. 3d 697, 712 (6th Cir. 2006) ("Where, as here, the
underlying claim is based on federal law, federal common law determines the
extent of the privilege. " (citing Fed. R. Evid. 501)); Crochran v. Columbus Bd. of
Educ., No. 2:15-CV-632, 2016 WL 1670886, at *4 (S. D. Ohio Apr. 27, 2016)
(declining to apply other Ohio confidentiality statutes to motion to quash
subpoena in case asserting violations of several federal statutes), objections
overruled, 2016 WL 5957677 (S. D. Ohio Oct. 14, 2016); Smith v. Sw. Licking
Sch. Dist. Bd. ofEduc., No. 209CV778, 2010 WL 3910487, at *3 (S. D. Ohio Oct.
1, 2010) (declining to apply an Ohio confidentiality statute in a federal question
case). Because the file is unquestionably relevant, and neither OSU nor the
Case No. 2:23-cv-2993; 2:23-cv-2994; 2:23-cv-3051 Page 3 of 4
Case: 2:23-cv-02994-MHW-CMV Doc #: 129 Filed: 03/20/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Medical Board advanced grounds for denying production apart from
§ 4731. 22(F)(5), OSU1 must produce it.
That said, the Court is mindful of the confidentiality interests of the patients
and other individuals referenced in the file. Accordingly, OSU is ORDERED to
produce the file under the following conditions:
(1) The names of former patients and non-OSU complainants and
witnesses, and other information which might identify such
individuals, shall remain redacted, but all other information must
be unredacted prior to production; and
(2)OSU shall produce the file marked "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY-
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER" as provided in the
December 20, 2023, Protective Order, ECF No. 25, such that
Plaintiffs may not use or disclose the report for any purpose other
than prosecuting the actions listed in the case caption above.
OSU must produce the file under these conditions WITHIN SEVEN DAYS of the
date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
w
ICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1 There is some disagreement among the parties and the Medical Board as to whether
OSU or the Medical Board is the appropriate entity to produce the report. As the party
to the litigation in question and the recipient of the subject request for production of
documents, OSU is the appropriate producing entity.
Case No. 2:23-cv-2993; 2:23-cv-2994; 2:23-cv-3051 Page 4 of 4
Case: 2:23-cv-02994-MHW-CMV Doc #: 129 Filed: 03/20/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>