Cauchon et al v. Steward et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DENNIS CAUCHON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DWAYNE STEWARD, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action 2:25-cv-75
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
ORDER
This case came before the Court for a telephonic discovery conference on March 12,
2026. Defendants were represented by counsel, Plaintiff Dennis Cauchon was represented by
counsel as to Defendants’ counterclaims, and Plaintiff appeared pro se as to his individual claims
against Defendants.
Plaintiff requested the conference to compel Defendants to produce an unredacted
version of the October 10, 2024 investigative report by Attorney Meritza Nelson. Defendants
relied on at least part of the Nelson report in deciding to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.
Defendants argued that only the portion relating to non-party AmandaLynn Reese’s potential
conflict of interest is relevant to the claims and defenses in this action and redacted all other
portions. However, having reviewed the Nelson report in camera, the undersigned determined
that portions relating to Plaintiff’s claim of retaliation are also relevant, given that the retaliation
claim was also cited by Defendants in their letter terminating Plaintiff’s employment.
Case: 2:25-cv-00075-EAS-CMV Doc #: 84 Filed: 03/13/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Accordingly, Defendants must produce a copy of the Nelson report that includes their proposed
redactions, with the exception of the following sections:
• 	all portions of Section III.C, Dennis’s Retaliation Claim, on pp. 17–18;
• 	all portions of Section IV.E, Retaliation, on pp. 30–34, except for the second paragraph
on p. 31 (discussing AmandaLynn’s claim of retaliation);
• 	all portions of Section V.B, Personnel Recommendations, on p. 33; and
• 	corresponding sections of the table of contents.
Plaintiff also moved to compel production of the underlying factual materials provided to
Ms. Nelson as part of the investigation, including audio recordings of nine witness interviews.
These materials are attorney work product protected by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3),
and Plaintiff has not made the necessary showing of substantial need for these materials or that
he cannot obtain the information contained in the material by other means. Defendants need not
produce these underlying factual materials.
In sum, Plaintiff’s Oral Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:25-cv-00075-EAS-CMV Doc #: 84 Filed: 03/13/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>