FI RST DI VI SI ON BA RNES, P. J. , GOBEI L and PI PKI N, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for re c ons ide r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly re ce iv e d in our cle r k’s offic e w ithin t e n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

Decem b er 21, 2023



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 389

. COOPER et al. v

. POLLA RD et al.

A 24A 0 449

. M ORGA N v

. COOPER et al.

A 24A 0 450. POLLA RD v

. COOPER et al.

P IP K I N , J u d ge.

These co nso lid ated ap peals challenge ord ers entered by the Su p erio r Co u rt o f

M i tc h e l l Co u nty in a qu o w arranto ac tio n. M ore sp ec if ic ally, Case N o s. A 24A 0449

and A 24A 0450 c hallenge the trial c o u rt’ s o rd er entering d ef au lt j u d gments in the qu o

w a r r anto ac tio n, a nd Case No

. A 24A 0389 is an ap peal fro m an ord er in w h i c h t h e

c o u rt ref u sed to r u le o n a m otio n f o r c o ntemp t o f the def

au lt j ud gm e n t d u e t o t he

au t o m a t i c su p ersed eas set o u t in OCGA § 5- 6- 46 (a). We hav e exp e d ited these

ap p eals and , as mo re f

u lly set f orth belo w , af

f irm in all three c ases.

1

. Pertinent t o these ap p eals, the rec o rd sho w s that Co rey B

. M o r gan and

V enterra Po llard (c o llec tiv ely “ Resp ond ents” ) w e r e elec ted as Distric t 1 c o u nc ilmembers f

o r t he City o f Camilla, Geo rgia (“ City” ) o n D ec ember 31 , 201 9 and 2021 , 1

resp ec t iv ely. I n N o v ember 2022, D av id Co o p er and J o e B ostic k (c o llec tiv ely

“ Petitio ners” ) f

iled an “ A p p lic atio n f

o r Leav e o f Co u rt to File an Inf ormatio n in the

N atu re o f a Petitio n f

o r Qu o W arranto ” and a “ V erif ied Petitio n fo r Qu o W arranto ”

seek ing to remo v e Resp o nd ents f ro m the c o u nc il o n the basis that t hey d id no t meet

the resid e nc y requ irements imp o sed by Geo r gia law and the Charter fo r the City. 2 The

p etitio n so ught a d ec laratio n c o nc erning R e s p o nd e nts’ ability to serv e as c o u nc il

members u nd er bo th OCGA § 9

- 6

- 6 0, the qu o w arranto s tatu te, and OCGA § 9

- 4- 1 ,
the d ec larato r y j u d gment statu t e.

P et i tio ners requ est to p ro c eed w ith a qu o w arranto inqu iry w as gran t e d ;

thereaf ter, Petitio ners serv ed Resp ond ents w ith the qu o w arranto p etitio n, alo ng w ith

interro gato ries and re q u e s t s fo r p r o d u c t i o n o f d o cu m e n t s

. R e s p o n d e n ts, bo th o f w ho m

1 This means that M o rgan’ s term end s o n D ec e mber 31 , 2023, and Po llard ’ s term end s o n D e c ember 31 , 2025.

2 Und er thes e p r o v isio ns, Resp o nd ents w ere requ ired to be resid e nts o f the d istric t they serv e f

o r a c o ntinu o u s p erio d of tw elv e mo nths p rio r to being elec ted to the c o u nc il, and to c o ntinu e to liv e in t heir ele c t e d d istric t d u ring the p erio d they

serv e d o n the c o u nc il. Petitio ners alleged that, d u ring a t least p arts o f the relev ant time p erio d , M o rgan resid ed in Pelham, Geo rgia, and Po llard resid ed in A lbany, Geo rgia. The Distric t 1 resid enc e M organ c laimed as his permanent resid enc e w as o w ned by his grand mo ther, and Po llard ’ s alleged Distric t 1 resid enc e w as o w ned by his sister.

2ap p eared p r o se, f iled answ ers to the p etitio n and u nv e r if ied resp o nses a nd o b j ec tio ns

to t he disc o v ery requ ests. A s exp lained mo re f u lly belo w , Resp ond ents resisted

Petitio ner s ’ d i s co v ery ef f o rts, and Petitio ners f

iled sev eral m o t io ns to c o mp el and

mo tio ns to strik e R e sp o nd ents’ answ ers and d e f enses based o n disc o v ery v io latio ns.

A f ter sev eral hearings a nd the entry o f sev eral o r d ers c o mp elling disc o v ery, the trial

c o u rt, in a 30- p age o rd er, granted Petitio ners’ mo tio n to strik e and e ntered a d ef au lt
j u d gment o n their qu o w arranto p e titio n ( “ f inal j u d gment” ). In ad d itio n to extensiv e

f ac t- f ind ing and d eterminatio ns a b o u t Resp ond ents’ d isc o v e ry vio latio ns, the o rd er

also c o ntained sp ec if

ic d e c laratio ns that Resp o nd ents w ere no t r esid ents of the City,

that they lac k ed the au tho rity to ac t a s members o f the co u nc il, and that their p o sitio ns

w ere vac ant. Resp o nd ents, w ho hav e c ontinu ed t o rep resent themselv es thro u gho u t

these p ro c eed ings, timely f iled sep arate no t ic es o f a p p e a l f ro m the f inal j ud gment 3 ;

M o rgan’ s ap p eal w a s d o c keted in th i s C o u r t as Case No

. A 24A 0449 , and Po llard ’ s

ap p eal w as d o c k e ted in this Co u rt as Case N o

. A 24A 0450.

A f ter t he trial co u r t e ntered i t s f inal j u d gment, Petitio ners believ ed that

Resp o nd e nts c o ntinu ed to p artic ip ate in c o u n c i l a c t iv ities as if they had no t been

3 Resp o nd ents o riginally f iled their no tic e s o f

ap p eal to the Su p reme Co u rt o f Geo rgia. The Su p reme Co u rt transf erred the ap p eals to u s af

ter they determined that this Co urt had j u risd ic tio n o f the ap p eals.

3remo v ed f

ro m of f i ce , p r o m p t i n g P e t i t i o n e r s to file an emergenc y m o t io n fo r c o ntemp t,

as amend ed , in the trial co u rt. Fo llo w ing a hearing, the trial c o urt entered an o rd er to

the ef f ec t that it had been d iv este d o f j u risd ic tio n to ru le o n t he mo tio n w hen

Resp o nd e nts f

iled t heir no tic es o f ap p eal and p aid c o sts and , ac c o rd ingly, ref u sed to

entertain the mo tio n ( “ su p e rsed eas o r d er” ). Petitio ners f iled a no tic e o f ap p eal f

ro m

that o rd e r, and that ap p eal has been d o c k eted in this Co u rt as Case N o

. A 24A 0389

.
C a s e N o

. A24 A0389

2. W e tu rn f

irst to Petitio ners’ c hallenge to the trial c ou rt’ s su p ersed eas o rd er. 4

I n p ertinent p art, O C G A § 5

- 6

- 46 (a) pro v id es that “ [i]n c iv il cases, the no tic e o f

ap p eal

. . . shall serv e as su p e rsed eas u p o n p ayment o f all c o sts in the t r ial c o u rt by the

ap p ellant[. ]” Thu s, “ ‘ [a]s a general ru le, in c iv il ac t io ns o ther than inj u nc tio ns, a trial

c o u rt, u p o n t he f

iling o f a no t ic e of ap p eal, lo s es j u risd i c t i o n t o mo d if y o r enf o rc e a
j u d gment w hic h is the su bj e c t o f the ap peal d u ring the p erio d o f s u p ersed eas. ’ D a v i s

4 N either Mo r gan no r Po llard has f iled a n a p p e l lee’ s brief in Case N o. A 24A 0389

. T he City o f Camilla has, ho w ev e r, f iled an amic us brief in su p p o rt o f the trial c o urt’ s su persed eas o rd er. W e a l s o n o te t hat, a ltho u gh w e af f irm the f inal j u d gment in Cas e N o s. A 24A 0449 and A24A 0450, this issu e is no t mo o t. “ A n ap p ellate c o u rt maintains ju risd ic tio n o v er a c ase u ntil it has issu ed the remittitu r and the remittitu r has been rec eiv ed and f iled in the c lerk ’ s o f

f ic e belo w

. Only then d o es the trial c o u rt regain j u risd ic tio n to tak e f u r ther ac tio n w ith resp ec t to the j u d gment ap p ealed

. ” (Citat i o n a n d pu nc tu atio n omitted

. ) Fred Jo nes E n terpri s es , LLC v

. W i l li a ms , 331 Ga. A p p. 481 , 485 (2) (7 7 1 SE2d 1 63) (201 5).

4v

. Ha rpa

go n C o

. , 281 Ga. 250, 253 (8) (6 37 SE2d 1 ) (2006 ). ” Mu ghn i v

. Beyo n d Mgmt.

Gro u p, In c. , 349 Ga. A p p

. 39 8, 402 (3) (825 SE2d 829 ) (201 9 ).
(a) Petitio ners ac k no w led ge the general ap p lic a bility o f OCGA § 5- 6

- 46 , bu t,

c iting Ba n kers L i

fe a n d C as

. C o. v

. C ra v ey , 209 Ga. 27 4 (7 1 SE2d 659 ) (1 9 52) and o ther

mand a mu s c ases, they argu e t hat the au to matic su p ersed eas p ro v isio ns o f O C G A §

5- 6 -46 (a) d o n o t a p p ly to c ases inv o lv ing extrao rd inary remed ies. W e d isagree that

Ba n kers sho u ld be read so bro ad ly. First, a n d w i t h o u t belabo ring the p o int, Ba n kers

w as d ec id ed p rio r to t he ad o p tio n o f bo th the A p p ellate Prac t ic e A c t in 1 9 65 and the

Geo rgia Co nstitu tio n o f 1 9 83, and it is ap parent that the Co u rt’ s analysis b ased o n the

then- existing su persed eas statu t e and sinc e- rev ised co nstitu tio nal p ro v isio n w o u ld be
materially d if

f erent to d ay. Ba nkers , 209 Ga. at 27 5- 27 7

. M o re imp o rtantly, we c anno t
simp ly engraf

t the reaso ning in Ba n kers , o r any o t her mand amu s c ase, onto this c ase

b e c a u se the s tatu te go v erning m and amu s ap p eals sp ec if ic ally says

– as it sai d a t t h e

time Ba n kers w as dec id ed

– t hat tho se ap p e als “ shall be heard

. . . u nd er the same law s

and ru les as ap p ly in inj u nc tio n c ases. ” OCGA § 9

- 6

- 28 (b). Ba n kers , 209 Ga. at 27 7
(same). And o ur law is c lear that there is no au to matic su p ersed e as in a n ap p eal f ro m

an o rd er granting a n inj unc tio n. See OCGA § 9- 1 1

- 6 2 (a) (“ Unless o t herw ise o rd ered
by the c o u r t, an interlo c uto ry o r f inal j u d gment in an ac tio n f or an inj u nc tio n o r in a

5rec eiv ership ac tio n shall no t b e stayed du r ing the p erio d af ter i t s e n t r y and u ntil an

ap p eal is tak en o r d u ring the p end enc y o f an ap p eal. ” ). 5

There is no c o mp arable langu age, ho w ev e r , i n the statu tes go v erning qu o

w arranto

. OCGA § 9

- 6

- 6 4 (a) d irec ts a p arty dissatisf ied w ith the f

i n al dec isio n in a

qu o w arranto p ro c eed ing to “f ile an ap p eal as in o t her c ases[. ]” W hile this langu age

also ap p e ars in the mand amu s statu te, see OCGA § 9

- 6

- 28 (a), as exp lained abo v e, the

mand a mu s statu te go e s o n to say in su bse c tio n ( b) that ap p eals in tho s e c ases are

“ und er the same law s and ru les as ap p ly in inj unc tio n c ases[,]” w hile the qu o

w arranto statu te merely go es o n to say t hat “ the d u ties o f the c lerk shall be the same

as in o ther cases” where ap p eals are f iled

. OCGA § 9 -6

- 6 4 (a). M oreo v er, t here is no

d o u bt that the legislatu re kno w s ho w to exemp t c lasses o f c ases f ro m t he au to matic

su p ersed e a s p ro v isio ns bec au se no t o nly d id it d o s o in inj u nc tio n and mand amu s

c ases, bu t it also has d o ne so in elec tio n c o ntest c ases, whic h of ten c o nc er n issu es

similar to tho se a d j u d ic ated in qu o w a r ranto c ases. See OC G A § 2 1

- 2- 528. B u t

Petitio ners hav e no t c ited , and w e hav e no t f o u nd , anything in t he sp e cif ic statu tes

5 There are nu mero u s ap p ellate c ases ho ld ing that there is no au to matic

su p ersed eas in an ap p eal f ro m a n o rd er granting an inj u nc tio n. E. g. Ba rn es v

. C ha n n el , 303 Ga. 88, 9 2 (1 ), n. 3 ( 81 0 SE2d 5 49 ) (201 8); Bu rto n v

. Glyn n C o u n ty , 29 7 Ga. 548, 549 (4) (7 7 6 SE2d 1 7 9 ) ( 201 5); Bro wn v

. S pa n n , 27 1 G a. 49 5, 49 6 (520 SE2d 9 09 ) (1 9 9 9 )

6go v erning qu o w arranto p r o c eed ings, o r any o ther statu te, that exemp ts a j u d gment

issu ed in a qu o w a rranto p ro c eed ing f ro m the au to m atic su p ersed eas pro v isio ns o f

OCGA § 5- 6- 46 (a). A c co rd ingly, bec au se w e hav e f o u nd neither a stat u t e no r

c o ntro lling d ec isio nal law sp e c if ic ally exemp t ing qu o warranto p ro c eed ings f ro m the

au to matic su p ersed eas p ro v isio ns o f OCGA § 5- 6 -46 (a), the t r ial c o u rt’ s o rd er is no t

su bj ec t to rev ersal o n this basis.
(b) Petitio ners also argu e that the au to matic su p e rsed eas p ro v isio ns o f OCGA

§ 5- 6

- 46 d o no t ap p ly bec au se th e y s o u g h t , and the trial c o u rt granted , inj u nc tiv e

relief

. A ltho u gh, as s tated a bo v e, it is tru e t hat o rd ers granting inj u nc tiv e relief are no t

su bj ec t to the au to matic s u p ersed eas s et o u t in OCGA § 5- 6

- 46 (a), w e disagree that
inj unc tiv e r elief w as granted here. The d if f erenc e b etw ee n a d ec larato r y j u d gment and

an inj u nc tio n has been exp lained bef o re: “ A d ec larato ry j u d gment is a means b y w hic h

a s u p erio r c o u rt simp ly d ec lares the rights o f the p arties o r exp resses its o p inio n o n a

qu estio n o f law w itho u t o rd ering anything to b e d o ne. A n inj u nc tio n, by c o ntrast,
imp o ses an af

f irmativ e d uty o n the p a rty enj o ined to e ither p erf o rm

– or ref

r ain f ro m

p erf o rming

– a sp ec if

ied ac t. ” ( Citatio ns and p u nc tu atio n omitted

. ) Bu rto n , 29 7 Ga.

at 549

- 550 ( 4 )

. I n t h e ir qu o warranto p etitio n, Petitio ners s o u ght a “ Dec laratio n o f

Qu o W arranto J u d gme n t” sp ec if ic ally ref erenc ing bo th OCGA § 9

- 6

- 6 0 (qu o

7w arranto statu t e) and 9

- 4- 1 (d ec larato ry j ud gment statu te). A nd in their “ Prayer f o r

Relief ,” Petitio ners so ught “ d e c larato ry relief ,” j u d gment in qu o w arranto , atto rney

f ees, exp enses o f litigatio n, a nd “ su c h o ther a nd f u rther relief as j u stic e requ ires. ” I n

the final j u d gment, the t r ial c o u rt set o ut the relief granted as a series o f ad j u d ic atio ns

and d ec laratio ns and did no t mentio n inj u nc tiv e relief. 6 F u r t h e r , Petitio ners raised this

argu ment in the trial co u rt in su p p o rt o f their mo tio n f o r c o ntemp t, and , altho u gh the

trial c ou rt d id no t sp ec if

ic ally ad d ress this issu e in its su p ersed e a s o rd e r, the trial c o urt
imp lic itly rej ec ted t his argu men t b y c o nc lu d ing the au to matic su p ersead e as ap p lied

here. Bu rto n , 29 7 Ga. at 550 (4) (in d e c id ing w hether au to m atic su persed eas ap p lied ,

t r i a l c o u rt p r o p erly interp reted its o r d er as d ec larato ry j u d gment, no t inj u nc tio n )

.

A c c o rd ingly, this argu m ent is also u nav ailing and the su persed eas o rd er is af f irmed

.
C a s e N o

. A24 A04 4 9

3. We tu rn no w t o the Resp o nd ents’ c hallenges to the f inal j u d gment. I n Case

N o

. A 24A 0449 , M o rgan r aises three enu merat i o n s o f e rro r : (a) that the trial c o urt

abu sed its d isc retio n b y strik ing his answ er and def enses, (b) that the trial c o urt erred

6 A ny c laim that inj unc tiv e relief w as granted bec au s e the f inal j u d g m e n t

o rd ered Resp o nd ents to retu rn bo o k s , p ap e rs, elec tro nic d ev ic es, and o ther items belo nging to the City is u nav ailing sinc e that remed y is s p ec if ic ally p ro v id e d f

o r in the qu o w arranto statu te. See OCGA § 9

- 6

- 6 6

.

8by ref

using to allo w him to intro d u c e c ertain ev id enc e at o ne of the hearings, and (c )

t h at the trial c o u rt erred by d enying his mo tio n to d ismiss. W e ad d r e s s e a c h

enu meratio n in tu rn. (a) W e f irst c o nsid er M o rgan’ s co nten t i o n that the t r ial c o urt abu sed its

d isc r etio n in stri k i n g his answ er and d ef enses and entering a d ef

au lt j u d gment. We

start w ith o u r stand ard o f rev iew

. [ R ]u lings o n mo tio n to strik e and f o r e ntry of d ef

au lt j u d gment a r e

rev iew ed b y this Co u rt u sing an abu se o f d isc retio n stand ard

. I nd eed , a
tr i a l j u d ge has b r o ad disc retio n in t he enf orc ement o f the d isc o v e ry
p ro v isio ns o f t he Civ il P r a c t ic e Ac t, and w e w ill no t interf ere w ith the

exerc ise o f that d isc retio n absent cl e a r a b u s e

. Ne v e r t h e l e s s , d i s m i s s al a nd d ef au lt are the harshest sanc tio ns av ailable f o r the trial c o u rt to imp ose, and w e hav e cau tio ned against the use o f these harsher sanc t io ns e xc ep t in extreme c ases.

(Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) Po tts v

. Clo wdi s , 36 0 Ga. A p p

. 581 , 583 (1 ) (859

SE2d 8 7 5) (2021 ). Lik ew ise, “ [a] trial c o u rt has wid e d isc retio n in ad j u d ic ating

sp o liatio n issu es, and su ch d isc retio n w ill no t be d istu rbed a bsent a bu se. ” (Citatio n

o mitted .) Phi

lli ps v

. Ha rmo n , 29 7 Ga. 386 , 39 7 (I I) (7 7 4 SE2d 59 6 ) (201 5). In ad d itio n

to ou r s tand ard o f rev iew , it is also imp o rtant t o no te that o ur law s p ec if ic ally p ro v id es

t h a t “ t h e p ro v isio ns o f [the Civ il Prac tic e A c t ] go verning

. . . d isc o v ery an d

9d ep o sitio ns

. . . a p p ly” to all “ [ s p ec ial] p ro c eed ings[,]” s u c h as qu o warranto

p ro c eed ings. See OCGA § 9 -1 1

- 81

.

I n o rd er t o ad dress this enu meratio n, it is nec essary to set o u t i n d e tail the

d i s c o v ery histo ry betw een t he p arties. The rec o rd sho w s that Petitio ners d ee m e d

Resp o nd e nts’ initial resp o nses to their w ritten disc ov ery r e q u e s t s i n ad e qu ate and sent
Resp o n d e n t s a Unif

o rm Su p e rio r Co u rt Ru le 6

. 4 letter in an ef f ort to w o rk o u t the

d isp u te. Resp o nd ents did no t rep ly, and , o n J anu ary 25, 2023, Petitio ners f iled a

mo t io n t o c o mp el d isc o v ery. Resp o nd ents rep lied and argu ed , amo ng o ther things,

that sinc e it w as Petitio ners’ bu rd en to pro v e t hat Resp o nd ents resid ed o u tsid e

D istric t 1 , R e s p o n dents sho u ld no t be c omp elled to p resent ev id enc e to p ro v e

Petitio ners’ c laims.

A hearing w as held o n t he mo tio n to c o m p el o n Febru ary 1 3, 2023. Du ring the
hearing, the t rial c o u rt attemp ted to exp lain to the R e s p o nd e nts the p arties’ d isc o v ery

r i g h t s u nd er the Civ il Prac tic e A c t a nd later cau t io ned them that, in the e v ent t h e

c o u rt issu ed an o rd er c o mp elling their resp o nses and they f ailed to resp o nd , the c o urt

c o u ld then strik e their answ ers. On Febru ary 20, 2023, t he trial c o u rt entered an o rd er

10o n the mo tio n to c o m p e l , 7 wherein the c o u rt mad e item- by- item ru lings o n the

interro gato ries the R e sp o nd ents w ere c o mp elled to answ er and the d o c u ments they

w ere c o mp elled to p r o d u c e. Resp o nd ents p u rp o rted to c o mp ly w ith the trial c o u rt’ s

o rd er on the mo tio n to c o m p el b y f ilin g v e r i fi e d i n t e r r o g a t o ry resp o nses and p ro d u c ing

c ertain d o c u ments, inc lu d ing p ho to grap hs o f their ro o m s at their resp ec tiv e D istric t

1 resid e nc es.

Petitio ners then no t ic ed Resp o nd ents’ d e p o sitio ns f o r A p ril 1 2, 2023.
Resp o nd e nts f

iled a mo tio n to qu ash and , altho u gh they had no t so u ght a p ro tec tiv e

o rd er o r o therw ise o btained a ru ling f ro m the t rial c o u rt exc u sing them f ro m attend ing

their d ep ositio ns, Resp o nd e nts f ailed t o ap p ear f

o r their d ep o sitio ns o n A pril 1 2. On

M ay 5, 2023, Petitio ners f iled a mo tio n to strik e Resp o nd ents’ a nsw ers a nd d ef enses

based o n d isc o v ery v io latio ns, sp ec if ic ally their f

ailu re to attend their dep o sitio ns. On
J u ne 28, 2023, the trial c o u rt held a hearing o n the mo tio n to strik e. A fter no ting that

Resp o nd e nts had r esisted d isc o v ery “ f ro m the o u tset o f t he p ro c eed ings” and w hile

reserv ing the right “ to mo re f u lly imp ose s anc tio ns” at a later d a te, the trial c o urt

o rd ered Re sp o nd ents to a ttend and answ er qu estio ns at any p ro p erly- no tic ed

7 A ltho u gh the trial c o u rt ent e r e d a j o int o rd er o n the tw o mo tio ns, the o rd er

w as sep arat e l y e ntered a s to the tw o Resp o nd ents a nd the d isc o v e r y ru lings w ere sp ec if ic to eac h o f

them.

11d ep o sitio n sc hed uled p rio r to J u ly 1 5, 2023, whic h w as tw o d ays bef o re the c ase had

been set f o r trial. Petitio ners sent Resp o nd ents no tic es to tak e t heir v id eo d ep o sitio ns,

and Resp o nd ents w ere d ep osed o n J u ly 1 1 , 2023.

D u ring their d e p ositio ns, Resp o n d ents w ere qu estio ned e xtensiv ely abo u t

w here they resid ed , w hen they stayed at their Distric t 1 resid enc e, and v ario u s o ther

qu estio ns d esigned to garner inf o rmatio n abo u t the c entral issu e in this c ase. On many

o c c asio ns, Resp ond ents gav e almo st id entic a l resp o nses to the ef f ec t that they c o u ld

no t answ er the qu estio ns bec au se “ I d o n’ t k eep a rec o rd of t hat. ” 8 Fu r ther, bo th men

ref erred to no tes o r t heir d isc ov ery resp o nses w hen answ e r ing qu estio ns; when ask ed

w hy they c o u ld no t answ er w itho u t ref erring t o their no tes, t hey exp lained that they

w anted to remain “ co nsistent as a p ro se litigant” and to answ er tru thf u lly. 9

8 To be c lear, Resp o nd ents w ere dep osed s ep arately bu t, as set ou t abo v e, they

o f ten u sed the same p hrasing in answ ering, o r ref u sing to answ e r, similar qu estio ns.

9 Fo r instanc e, w hen M o rgan w as s ho wn a p ic tu r e o f a b e d , he had to ref er to his “ no tes” bef

o re he c o uld testif

y that it w a s t h e b e d a t h is D istric t 1 ho me. A nd Po llard had to r ef

er to his no tes bef

o r e testif ying w ho e lse liv ed at his D istric t 1

“ permanent resid enc e. ” Po llard w as requ ested by c o u nsel to sho w him the no tes he

w as ref e rring to d u ring t he d ep o sitio n, bu t Po llard ref used , an d t h e tr i al co u rt w as
c o ntac ted by telep ho ne; the trial c o u r t inf o rmed Po llard that o p p o s ing co u nsel had the right to see any d o cu ments he rev iew ed in answ ering qu estio ns d uring his dep o sitio n. The c o u rt also remind ed Po llard that he had no t yet r u led o n Petitio ners’ m o tio n f o r
sanc tio ns and t h a t t h e c o u rt might lo o k to w hat o c c urred d u ring the d ep o sitio n as d isp o sitiv e o f

that mo tio n.

12Resp o nd e nts w ere also qu estio ned extensiv ely abo u t the p ho to grap hs they pro v id ed

in resp o nse to Petitio ners’ requ ests f o r p ro d u ctio n o f d o c u ments. Po llard 1 0 testif ied

that he c o u ld no t say w hen the p ic tu r e that he p u r p o rted to be h i s b e d r o o m at his

D istric t 1 resid e nc e w as t ak en and exp lained that altho u gh he to o k the p ic t u res w ith

his p ho ne, he c o u ld no t use his p ho ne to f ind the d a te he t oo k it b ec a u se the p ic tu r es

w ere n o l o n ger o n his p ho ne. When rep eated ly ask ed if he had d eleted the p ic tu r es

f r o m his p ho ne, Po llard wo u ld o nly resp o nd that he to o k t he pic tu res bu t “I d o no t

hav e t ho s e p ic tu res in my p ho ne” o r similar wo rd s w itho ut being able to o f f er any

exp lanatio n o f w hy t he p ho to grap hs w ere no lo nger o n his p ho ne. 1 1 When M organ w as

ask ed if he had a ny p ic tu res o f his Pelham ap artment, 1 2 he testif ied that he w as su re he

1 0 A ltho ugh this D iv isi o n d eals w ith M o rgan’ s enu meratio n o f erro r, Po llard mak es t he same argu ments in his ap p e al, w h i c h w e a d d r ess in D iv isio n 4, and it is help f u l to set ou t examp les f

ro m bo th Resp o nd ents’ dep ositio ns to sho w the similarity

o f their resp o nses.

1 1 So me o f Petitio ners’ qu estio ns abo u t the p ho to grap hs w ere f ormu lated to sho w that the pho to grap hs R e sp o nd ents p r o v id ed o f their D istric t 1 resid enc es w ere staged

. They also d ep o sed f amily members o n this issu e. D u ring her d ep o sit i o n , M o rgan’ s grand mo ther testif ied t hat s he d id no t r ec o gniz e the items in the p ho to grap h that M o rgan su bmitted as a p h o t o g r a p h o f his ro o m at his D istric t 1 ad d ress. Po llard ’s sister also t estif ied in her d ep o sitio n that she did no t rec o gniz e the items in the p ho to grap h su p p o sed ly tak en in Po llard ’ s bed ro om at her ho u se.

1 2 Altho u gh he had been o rd ered t o d o s o by the trial c ou rt, M o rgan d id no t p ro d uc e any p ho to grap hs o f his Pelham ap artment.

13had tak en p ho to grap hs bu t he d id no t hav e any o n his p ho ne no w bec au se it was a new

p ho ne. W hen p ressed abo u t his answ er, M o rgan said that he k new his new p ho ne

“ was no t p resent o r o n [his] p erso n at the time he rented the Pelham ap artment,” bu t

that he c o u ld no t rec all w hen he go t his new p ho ne.

The d ay af

ter Resp o nd ents’ d ep o sitio ns, Petitio ners f iled an eme r g enc y

re n e w ed mo tio n to strik e Resp o nd ents’ answ ers and def enses b ased o n v ario u s

d isc ov ery v i o l a t i o n s , i n cl u d i n g t h e i r e v a s i v e a n d n o n

- r e sp o nsiv e d ep o sitio n testimo ny,

sp o liatio n o f ev id enc e, and manu f ac t u ring ev id enc e. The trial c o u rt held a hearing o n

the mo tio n o n J u ly 1 7, 2023, d u ring w hic h v ario u s parts of Resp o nd ents’ rec o r d ed

d ep o sitio ns w ere p layed f o r the c o u rt. Fo llo w ing the hearing, the trial c o urt entered

the f inal j u d gment at issu e here.

M o rgan argu es that the trial c o u rt abu sed its d isc retio n in e ntering its f inal
j u d gment bec au se, in his v iew , he merely vio lated “ the sp irit o f t he law

. ” B u t the trial

c o u rt d id no t f

ind that Resp o nd ents merely v io lated the sp irit o f the law

. The trial

c o u rt entered a lengthy and d etailed o rd er setting o u t Resp o nd en t s ’ “ w i llf u l and

intentio nal d isc o v e ry v io latio ns,” w hile a lso emp hasiz ing its o wn rep eated w arnings

to Resp ond ents abo u t the r ight o f e ac h p arty t o c o nd u ct d isc o v e ry as w ell as the

c o nsequ enc es o f t he f

ailu re to p ro v id e requ ested d isc o v ery. The c o urt o bserv ed that

14Resp o nd e nts’ stanc e ap p eared to be that they were exemp t f ro m d isc o v ery bec au se
they w ere p ro se litigants a nd did no t hav e the bu rd en to p ro v e Petitio ners’ c laims.

The trial c o u rt no t e d that it had assessed Resp o nd ents’ c r ed ibility in relatio n to all

d isc ov ery issu es and in p artic u lar the sp o liatio n issu e s b ased o n the c o u rt’ s

o bserv atio ns o f

Resp ond ents’ attitu des d isp layed in the c o u rtro om and d uring their

d ep o sitio ns. T he trial c ou rt also set o u t sp ec if ic f ind ings w ith resp ec t to Resp ond ents’

d ep o sitio n testimo ny, inc lu d ing that the y rep e ated ly ev ad e d and r e f used to answ er

c ritic al and r elev ant qu estio ns p ertaining to their d omic ile, the a u thentic ity o f

p ho to gra p h s , a n d o t h e r q u estio ns relating t o the sp o liatio n of e v id enc e. B ased o n these

and o ther f

ind ings, t he trial c o u rt d etermined t h a t sev e r e s anc tio ns w ere w arranted

based o n “ Resp o nd ents’ exp ress d ef ianc e o f this C o u r t ’ s Ord ers as w ell as their

w illf u l and intentio nal d isc o v ery v io latio ns. The Res p o nd ents hav e b reac hed their

o bligatio ns no t to sp o liate ev id enc e, v io lated the Co u r t’ s o rd er c o mp elling d isc o v ery

o f p ho to grap hic ev id enc e, and f u rther vio l ated the Co u rt’ s o r d er c o mp elling their

d ep o sitio ns. ” The co u rt f u r ther d etermined that R e sp o nd ents’ ac t i o ns resu lted in

p rej u dic e to Petitio ners in a nu mber of w ays, inc lu d ing t he p rej u d ic e they su f f ered as

a resu lt o f no t being able to p ro v e their c laim that R e s p o nd ents manu f ac tu red

ev id enc e. On ap peal, M o rgan d o es no t tak e issu e w ith any o f the trial c o u rt’ s sp ec if ic

15f

ind ings. Clearly, as set o ut in t he trial c o u rt’ s o rd er, Resp o nd ents’ ac tio ns a mo u nted

to mo re than merely v io lating the sp irit o f the law

.

M o rgan, ho w ev er, p o sits ano ther arg u m e n t

– t h a t t h e s e v e r e s a nc tio n o f strik ing

his p lead ings was “ no t r ip e f o r ad j u d ic a tio n” bec au s e, M o rg an s a y s, he timely

c o mp lied w ith all co u rt o rd e rs. Fo r this same reaso n, Mo rgan c laims that his ac tio ns

o r f ailu re to ac t c anno t be c onsid ered intentio nal o r w illf u l. This argu ment – that he

c o mp lied w ith the trial c o u rt’ s o rd ers c o mp elling d isc o v e r y
– is belied by the rec o rd ,

as d isc u ssed a bo ve. I nd eed t he trial c o u rt c ited sev eral b ases f o r its o rd er, i n c lu d ing

statu tes, any o f w hic h w o u ld hav e w arranted t he strik ing o f M o rgan’ s a nsw er and

entry o f a d e f

au lt j u d gment, and no ne o f w hic h M organ c hallenges o n ap p eal. Fo r

examp le, M o r gan’ s f

ailu re to attend his f

irst d ep o sitio n, esp ec ially c ou p led w ith his

ev asiv e and no nresp o nsiv e testimo ny when he ap p eared at his s ec o nd d e p o s i tio n,

c learly w arranted the imp o sitio n o f sanc t io ns, inc lu d ing t he extreme s a n c t i o n o f

strik ing his a n s w er and entry o f a d ef a u lt j u d gment. See OCGA § 9

- 1 1

- 37 (d ) (1 )
(au tho riz ing t he s trik ing o f p lead ings and t h e e ntry o f a d ef au lt j u d gment against a

p arty w ho f

ailed to a ttend their d u ly no tic ed d ep o sitio n); D yer v

. S pectru m En

g. , In c. ,

245 Ga. A pp

. 30 (2) (537 SE2d 1 7 5) (2000) (same). A nd , c o ntr a r y to M o r g an’ s

assertio ns, his p ro se statu s a nd t he alleged imp ro p er mo tiv es o f the Petitio ners d id no t

16exc u se his d isc o v e ry v io latio ns. See OCGA § 9

- 1 1

- 37 (d ) (2) (exp laining that the

f ailu re to ap p e ar at a pro p erly no tic ed d e p o sitio n “ may no t be e xc u sed o n the gro u nd

that the d isc ov ery so u ght is o bj e c tio nable unless the p arty f ailing t o a ttend has ap p lied

f o r a p ro t ec tiv e o rd er” ). Fu rther, an o rd er c o mp elling attend anc e at a d ep o sitio n is

no t nec essary to au tho r iz e sanc tio ns u nd er OCGA § 9- 1 1

- 37 (2), as lo ng as t he f ailu re

to attend w as w ilf

u l. D yer , 245 Ga. A p p

. a t 31

- 32 ( 2 )

. W i lf u l in this c irc u mstanc e
simp ly means a c o nsc io u s or intentio nal failu re to ac t, id

. at 32 (2), and M o r gan mak es

no c l ai m t h a t his f

ailu re t o a ttend his f

irst d ep o sitio n w as d u e to ac c id ent o r

inad v ertenc e. 1 3
Lastly, it is i m p o r tant to no te that the trial c o u rt gav e M o rgan ev ery o p p o rtu nity

to av o id d isc o v ery sanc tio ns; it w a s o nly w hen he d emo nstrated his u nw illingness to

p artic ip ate in his dep o si t i o n b y giv ing ev asiv e and no n- resp o nsiv e answ ers that the

trial c ou rt imp o sed sanc tio ns. See OCGA § 9

- 11

- 37 (a) (3) ( pro v id ing that an ev asiv e

o r inc omp lete answ er in a d ep o sitio n shall be treated as a f a ilu re t o answ er). Based o n

the f o rego ing, M organ has f

ailed to d emo nstrate that t h e trial c o u rt a bu sed its

1 3 Fu rther, altho u gh M o r gan argu e s “ [i]n co nsid ering the issu e o f w illf u lness, the entire p erio d beginning w ith serv ic e o f the interro gato ries” sho u ld be c o nsid ered , see Smi th v

. Na t. Ba n k , 1 82 G a. A p p

. 55, 5 7 ( 2 ) (354 SE2d 6 7 8) (1 9 87 ) , he f ails to

r e c o g n i z e that this is exac tly w hat the trial co u rt d id , as c learly set o u t in the f i n a l

o rd er.

17d isc r etio n by imp osing the extreme sanc t io n o f s trik ing his a nsw er and en t e r i n g a

d ef au lt j u d gment o n the qu o w arranto p etitio n. (b) N ext, Mo r g an c o ntend s that the trial c o urt erred by ref u sing to allo w him

to intro du c e ev id enc e at t he J u ne 28, 2023 hearing regard ing the Petitio ners’ alleged ly
imp ro p er mo tiv e in r equ esting “ mo re” d isc o v ery and insisting o n t a k ing his

d ep o sitio n. First, it is c lear to u s that, d esp ite t he trial c o u rt’ s rep eated attemp ts to

exp lain the d isc o v ery p r oc ess, M o rgan failed to ap prec iate bo th the natu re a nd sc o p e

o f disc o v ery. 1 4 A s o ur Su p reme Co u rt exp lained in G e n era l Mo to rs

, LLC v

. Bu cha n a n ,

31 3 Ga. 81 1 (87 4 SE2d 52) (2022), “ the sc o pe of d isc o v ery u nd er t h e Civ il Prac tic e

A c t is b r o a d

. ” I d

. at 81 4 (2). To this end , “ [t]he d isc o very p ro c ed ure is to be

c o nstru ed liberally in f

av o r o f su p p lying a p arty w ith the fac ts. ” (Citatio n and

p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) I d

. M o rgan’ s a ssertio ns that Petitio ners so meho w had to o f f er

d ef initiv e pro of o f their c laims b e f o re they w ere entitled t o disc ov ery simp ly
misap p r ehend s t he d isc o v ery p ro c ess. A nd , a s the trial co u rt p ro p erly determined ,

w hat M o rgan d eems his “ c o nc erns that this c ase had po litic al and other o v e rto nes”

1 4 The trial c o u rt also r e p eated ly ad v ised Resp o nd ents abo u t t he benef its o f

o btaining c o u nsel, inc lu d ing at the J u ne 28 hearing.

18w a s i r r elev ant to t he d isc o v ery sanc tio n issu es that w ere the su bj ec t o f the J u ne 2 8 ,

2023 hearing. 1 5 This enu meratio n is thu s also w itho u t merit.
(c ) Lastly, M o rgan co ntend s the t r ial c o u rt erred by d enying his first mo tio n to

d ismiss. 1 6 The rec o r d sho w s the f irst m o tio n t o d ismiss w as f iled pu rsu ant to OCGA

§ 9 -1 1

- 1 2 (b) (6 ) and asserted that “ [t]he prep o nd eranc e o f t he ev id e nc e sho w s that

Petitio ners

. . . hav e no t and c anno t p ro d u c e eno u gh p ro bativ e ev id enc e ” to o v ertu rn

their elec tio ns. The trial c ou rt denied the first mo tio n t o d ismiss, f ind ing that the qu o

w arranto p etitio n presented issu es of f ac t that sho u ld be d etermined b y a j u ry. M o rgan
alleges that this w a s erro r, a rgu ing, in essenc e, t hat Petitio ners w ere requ ired to

d emo nstrate that they will u ltimately p r ev a il in ord er to s u rv iv e a m o t io n to d ismiss.

That is inc o r r ec t.

1 5 W e mak e c lear, h o w e v e r , that a p arty’ s right to d isc o v ery is no t w itho u t bo und a ries. To that end , a p arty c an seek a p ro tec tiv e o r d er f o r go o d c a u se s ho wn

. See O C GA § 9- 11

- 26 ( c ). H ow ev er, “ [t]he m ov ant has the b u rd en o f sho w in g [ h i s ] entitlement to a p ro tec tiv e o rd er u nd er this ru le. ” Bu cha n a n , 31 3 Ga. at 81 5 (2). W e again stress that Resp o nd ents nev er mo v ed f or a p r o tec tiv e o rd er.

1 6 The rec ord sho w s that Resp o nd e nts f iled t w o mo tio ns to d ismiss. Altho u gh M o rgan do es no t sp e c if

y, w ithin this enu meratio n, w h e ther he is c hallenging the d enial o f his f

irst o r sec o nd mo tio n to d ismiss, b ased on his a r gu ments, it seems c lear that this enu meratio n is limited to t he d enial of the f irst mo tio n to d ismiss. W e w ill, theref o r e, c o nf ine o u r d isc ussio n ac c o rd ingly.

19I t is w ell settled t hat a trial c o urt may no t grant relief on a 1 2 (b) (6 ) mo tio n to

d ismiss f o r f ailu re to state a c laim u nless
(1 ) the allegatio ns o f the c o mp laint d isc lo se w ith c ertainty that the c laims

w o u ld no t be entitled to r elief u nd er a ny state o f p ro vable f ac ts asserted
in su p p o rt thereo f; and (2) the m o vant establi s h es t hat the c laimant

c o u ld no t p o ssibly intro d u c e ev i d e nc e w ithin the f ramew o rk o f the

c o mp laint su f

f ic ient to w arrant a grant o f the rel i ef so u ght.

. . . I n d ec id ing a mo tio n to d ismiss, a ll plead ings a re to b e c o n stru ed mo st f av o rably to the p arty w ho f il e d t hem, and all d o u bts regard ing s u c h

p lead ings mu st be reso lv ed in the f iling p arty’ s f

av o r.

(Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o m itted

. ) Sco uten v. Ameri s a v e Mtg. C

o rp. , 283 Ga.

7 2, 7 3 (1 ) (6 56 SE2d 820) (2008). V ie w i n g the p e titio n, w hic h set ou t sp ec if ic
allegatio n s co n c e r n i n g Mo r g a n ’s a ct i v i t i e s o r no n- ac tiv ities w ith resp ec t t o his D istric t

1 ad d ress and his ap artment o u tsid e the d istric t, as w ell as t h e l aw a p p lic able to

P et i ti o n er s ’ c laims, it is c lear that the trial c o u rt d id no t err in d enying the mo tio n

.

A c c o rd ingly, the f

inal j u d gment is af

f irmed in Case N o. A 24A 0449

.

20C a se N o

. A 24 A04 5 0

4. Tu rning t o the c laims raised by Po llard in his ap p eal, Po llard mo stly ec ho es 1 7

M o rgan’ s enu meratio ns that the trial c o u rt erred b y strik ing his answ er a nd entering

a d e f au lt j u d gment, 1 8 by ref

u sing to allo w him t o intro d u c e ev id e nc e c o nc ern i n g

Petitio ner’ s mo tiv es, and by d enying his f irst mo tio n to d ismiss. Fo r the reaso ns stated

in D iv isio n 3 (a), (b) and (c ) abo v e, Po llard ’ s enu meratio ns are also w itho u t merit.

5. Po llard also argu es that the trial c o u rt e r r e d b y r ef u sing to allo w him to

p resent testimo ny f

ro m his siste r , A ngel W illiams, to rebu t Petitio ners’ c o u nsel’ s

statements a t t h e Ju l y 1 7 , 2 0 2 3 h e a r i n g co n ce r ning W illiams’ dep ositio n testimo ny and

the s p o liatio n issu e. The transc rip t f ro m the hearing sho w s that Po llard w as v agu e

abo u t why he w a nted the witness to testif y at the hearing, ind ic ating he w a n t e d the

1 7 A ny mino r d if

f erenc es in the argu ments Po llard asserts are no t m aterial to o u r analysis.

1 8 W e no te that mo st o f the trial co u rt’ s f ind ing s an d d e t erminatio ns w ere entered j o intly against “ Resp o nd ents. ” H o w e v er, w ith the resp ec t t o t he sp o liatio n
o f e v id enc e, it is w o rth c larif ying tha t M o r g an testif ied he no lo nger had the p ho to grap hs at issu e bec au s e he had a new p ho ne, w hile Po llard rep eated ly testif ied that the p ho to grap hs w ere no lo nger o n his p ho ne bu t ref u sed to answ er any qu estio ns
c o nc e rning w hether o r no t he had d eleted t he co mp e lled p ho to grap hic ev id enc e and ref u sed t o p r o v id e a ny o ther exp lanatio n c o nc erni n g w hy the p ho to grap hs w ere no lo nger o n his p ho ne.

2 1w itness t o rebu t “ things that hav e been mentio ned in t he d ep o sitio ns that p ertains to

this p ro c eed ing and

. . . so me c larif ic a tio n that need [ s] to be d o ne” and nev e r d irec tly

said that he w anted to rebu t c o u nsel’ s statements as it r elated to the sp o liatio n issu e.

The trial c o u rt ask ed Po llard w hether W illiams’ testimo ny w ent t o t h e merits o f w here

he liv ed , and Po llard resp o nd ed , “ yes, ind eed .” The trial co u rt then d isallo w ed

W illiams’ testimo ny, bu t a ssu red Po lla r d that the c o u rt w ou ld igno re hearsay

s tatements mad e b y c o u nsel. Po llard then w ithd rew his requ est to c all the w itness.

Und er these c irc u mstanc es, w he r e P o l l a r d n e v e r c l e a r l y artic u lated w hy he w anted the

w itness to testif

y a n d t h e n w ithd rew his requ est to c all the w itness, he c anno t no w

c o mp lain that t he trial c o u r t erred by ref u sing to allo w the witness to t estif y. The f inal
j u d gment is also af

f irmed in Case N o

. A 24A 0450.

Ju dgmen ts affi

rmed. Ba rn es

, P. J. , a n d Go bei

l, J. , co n cu r

.

22