Greenwald v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

CRYSTAL N. GREENWALD,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:23-cv-4100

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff, Crystal N. Greenwald, sues the United States of America under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1346(a) to recover federal income taxes that were allegedly erroneously or illegally assessed.

This matter is before the Court on the motion of non-party Licking County Job and Family

Services (“LCJFS”) to quash a subpoena issued by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 15.) For the reasons

below, LCJFS’s Motion to Quash is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s claims arise out of federal income taxes that were allegedly erroneously or

illegally assessed for the tax year 2020, based on the Internal Revenue Service’s disallowance of

Plaintiff’s earned income tax credit, child tax credit, additional child tax credit, and filing status

as “head-of-household.” (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 18, ECF No. 1.) To obtain documents relevant to the

dates that Plaintiff’s minor children S.J.S. and K.M.S lived with her in 2020, and to her assertion

that any absences by the children from Plaintiff’s home were only temporary, Plaintiff served a

subpoena on LCJFS on June 17, 2024, seeking “[t]he entire case file for Case No. C2020-0267

or any other material concerning the Plaintiff or her minor children.” (Subpoena, ECF No. 15-1.)

LCJFS did not respond to the subpoena and instead filed the subject Motion to Quash,

contending that the records sought by the subpoena are confidential under Ohio Revised Code

§§ 2151.421(I)(1), 5153.17. (ECF No. 15.) In the alternative, LCJFS requests that the Court

inspect the requested documents in camera to determine their admissibility in this action. (Id.)

Ohio Revised Code § 5153.17 provides that records of investigations of families and

children shall be kept confidential, but that inspection may be had by anyone obtaining the

written permission of the executive director of a public children services agency. Ohio Rev.

Code § 5153.17(A), (B)(1). Section 2151.421(I) similarly provides that reports of child abuse or

neglect are confidential. But these state confidentiality statutes are of limited relevance 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 §§ 2151.421, 5153.17, to motion to quash subpoena by county

child services board 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. of Educ., No.

209CV778, 2010 WL 3910487, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 1, 2010) (declining to apply a similar

confidentiality statute to school board records in a federal question case). As LCJFS offers no

other grounds for resisting the subpoena, the Motion to Quash lacks merit.

And even if this Court were to apply Ohio’s standards for disclosure of records under

these statutes, the Court would still decline to quash the subpoena. Confidentiality under these

statutes is not absolute. See State ex rel. Renfro v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Dept. of Human Services, 54

Ohio St.3d 25, 29 (1990). A party has a right to inspect confidential records where “(1) the

records or reports are relevant to the pending action; (2) good cause for such a request has been

established by the person seeking disclosure; and (3) where admission of the records or reports

outweigh the confidentiality considerations set forth in R.C. 5153.17 and R.C. 2151.421(H)(1).”

Johnson v. Johnson, 134 Ohio App.3d 579, 585 (3rd Dist.1999); see also Wiley v. Summit Cty.

Child. Servs., 2007 WL 936566, at *3 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (inspection of records otherwise

protected by § 5153.17 may be obtained by one demonstrating “good cause,” meaning “when it

is in the best interests of the child or when the due process rights of other subjects of the record

are implicated”) (citing Swartzentruber v. Orrville Grace Brethren Church, 163 Ohio App.3d 96,

100 (2005)). Here, the requested records are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims of entitlement to

various tax benefits. Plaintiff’s children would also benefit financially from the tax refund should

Plaintiff succeed in this action, making disclosure in the best interests of the children, and

Plaintiff has a due process right to test the validity of the taxes assessed against her. Finally,

Plaintiff asserts that the records will remain confidential after production, such that there is no

need to weigh production of the records against confidentiality considerations. As to this last

point, the Court encourages Plaintiff and LCJFS to enter into an agreed protective order such that

Plaintiff would be prohibited from using the records outside of this litigation.

Finally, an in camera inspection is unnecessary. LCJFS has not identified any particular

documents or categories of documents that are irrelevant, would create an undue burden, or

would implicate any other grounds for non-disclosure under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45.

There are therefore no grounds to conduct an in camera inspection at this point. However, the

Court will grant LCJFS additional time to notify Plaintiff of any objections to the subpoena

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. If, after meeting and conferring via simultaneous

means (such as telephone or video conference), Plaintiff and LCJFS reach impasse as to any

remaining disputes, Plaintiff or LCJFS may request an informal conference with the undersigned

to resolve those disputes by emailing Vascura_Chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov. Neither Plaintiff

nor LCJFS may file another motion related to the subpoena without first requesting an informal

conference with the Court.

In sum, LCJFS’s Motion to Quash (ECF No. 15) is DENIED. LCJFS is ORDERED to

produce documents in compliance with the subpoena, or to notify Plaintiff of any further

objections to the subpoena, WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS of the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura

CHELSEY M. VASCURA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE