Attorney argues privilege depends on circumstances, cites case reportedly allowing camera review

Justin Whitaker, identifying himself "on behalf of the app lead, Sandy Levy," told the court that the key question was whether communications between clients and attorneys should be treated as privileged "in determining whether communication like clients and attorneys should be afforded both the privilege much often depend on the circumstances of the case." Whitaker argued that the answer turns on the particular facts of each matter rather than a blanket rule.

Whitaker further cited a case the transcript records as "Ohio 26 14," saying that court had "analyzed" a similar issue and concluded camera review was appropriate where it had been requested and when discovery timing made production disputable. He summarized the reasoning conveyed in the cited decision: because camera review was specifically requested and discovery requests or interrogatories were pending, a review could be appropriate, and the privilege issue had been preserved in that matter. Whitaker also stated that in the present proceeding the privilege preservation argument "wasn't raised."

The transcript does not record a response from the judge or other parties, nor does it show a formal ruling or motion entry. The record provided is limited to Whitaker's opening remarks and legal argument; the court's next steps or any decision on admissibility, discovery, or camera review are not included in these segments.

Because the transcript includes an unclear citation (recorded as "Ohio 26 14") and uses the phrase "app lead" to describe Sandy Levy, the record here preserves the speaker's wording rather than substituting a corrected citation or role. Any formal citation or identification should be confirmed from the official court filing or reporter's record.