# C o urt o f A ppe a ls

o f th e S ta te o f G e o rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 5 D0 00 5 . MATTHEW D. MCMASTER v . J OHN LOW E et a l.

N o n- p arty M atthew D

. M c Master filed a requ est u n d e r Unif o r m Su p erio r Co u rt Ru le 22 to rec o rd p ro c eed ings in a p end ing d iv orc e a c ti o n betw een J o hn and
Lau ra L o w e. 1 The trial c o urt d enied the requ est and r eserv ed ru ling o n a requ est f o r

atto r ney f ees against M c Master, w ho t hen f iled t his ap plic atio n f

o r d isc retio nary
ap p e a l

. A c c ord ing t o M c M aster, t he o rd er may be ap p ealed d irec tly, bu t he f iled a d i sc retio nary ap p lic atio n o u t o f an a bu nd anc e o f c au tio n. W e, ho w e v er, lac k j u risd ic tio n. A s a general ru le, a d irec t ap p eal lies f r o m a f inal j u d gment w hen the c ase is no lo nger p end ing belo w

. See OCGA § 5- 6

- 34 (a) (1 ). A p p ellate co u rts hav e c reated an

exc ep tio n to t his finality r e q u i rement k no w n as the c o llateral ord er d o c trine, w hic h allo w s f o r the immed iate ap peal “ o f a v ery small c lass o f interlo c u to ry ru lings that are ef f ec tiv ely f inal in that t hey f

inally d etermine c laims of r ight sep arable f r o m, and

c o llateral to , rights asserted in the ac tio n, to o imp o rtant t o be d e nied rev iew and to o ind ep end ent o f the c au se itself to requ ire that ap p e l l a te c o nsid eratio n be def erred u ntil the w ho le case is ad j u d ic ated

. ” Bu ckn er- W eb b v. S t a te , 31 4 Ga. 823, 8 2 7

- 8 2 8 (2) (a) (87 8 SE2d 481 ) (2022) (p unc tu atio n o m itted )

.

1 Und er this ru le, “ [i]t is the p o lic y o f G eo rgia’ s co u rts to pro mo te a c c ess to and

u nd ers t a n d i ng o f c ou rt pro c eed ings no t o nly by t he partic ip ants in them bu t also by the general pu blic a nd by new s med ia who w ill rep o r t o n the p ro c eed ings to the p u blic

. ” USCR Ru le 22 (A ). Thu s, e v e n n o n

- p a rties may requ est p ermissio n to rec o rd p ro c eed ings. USCR Ru le 22 (F). August 20, 2024M c M aster argu es that he is entitled to a d irec t ap p e al o f the trial c o u rt’ s o rd er

based on the Su p reme Co urt’ s ho ld ing in Mu lti medi a WMAZ, In c. v

. S ta te , 2 5 6 Ga.
6 9 8 ( 353 SE2d 1 7 3) (1 987 )

. I n that c ase, ho wev er, the Su p reme Co u rt d id no t
exp lic itly f

ind t hat the t rial c o urt’ s d enial o f a requ est u nd er Unif o rm Su p erio r Co urt Ru le 22 w as s u bj ec t to d irec t ap p eal u nd er the c o llateral o r d er d o c trine; it f ou nd that the issu e w as no t rend ered mo o t by the reso lu t io n o f the u nd erlying c riminal c ase. I d

. at 6 9 9 (1 ). A nd w e see no need to exp and the co llateral o rd er d o c trine to inc lu d e the d en i a l o f a requ est u nd e r Ru le 22 as su ch a ru ling c an be ap p ealed thro u gh interlo c u to ry ap peal p r o c ed ures. See Bu ckn er- W e b b , 31 4 G a. at 831 (2) (b); ac c o rd
S o s n ia k v

. S ta te , 29 2 Ga. 35, 44 (7 34 SE2d 36 2) (201 2) (N ahmias, J

. c onc u rring)

. M c M a s ter is thu s no t e ntitled t o a d irec t ap p eal und e r the c o llateral o rd er d o c trine.
A c c o rd ingly, this ap p lic atio n f o r d isc retio nary ap p eal is no t su bj ec t to a grant u nd er OCGA § 5- 6

- 35 (j ).
B e c au se the o rd er M c M a ster seek s to ap p eal is no n- f inal, he w a s requ ired to

c o mp ly w ith the interlo c u to ry ap peal p ro c ed u res set fo rth in OCGA § 5- 6 -34 (b) in

o rd er to ap p eal. See S cru

ggs v

. Ga

. D ept. o

f Hu ma n Res o u rces , 26 1 Ga. 587 , 588- 589 (1 ) (408 SE2d 1 0 3) (1 9 91 ). The f iling o f an ap p lic atio n fo r disc retio nary ap p eal d o es no t

exc u se a p arty seek ing a p p ellate rev iew o f an interlo c u to r y o rd er f ro m c o m p lying w ith the ad d itio nal requ irements o f OCGA § 5- 6

- 3 4 (b), inc lu d ing obtaining a c ertif ic a t e

o f i m med iate rev iew f

ro m the t rial co u rt. See Ba i ley v

. Ba i ley , 26 6 Ga. 832, 832- 833 (47 1 SE2d 21 3) (1 9 96 ).A c c o rd ingly, w e lac k ju risd ic tio n o v er this a p p lic atio n f o r d isc retio nary ap p eal, w hic h is hereby D I SM ISSED

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t ify t ha t t h e a b o v e is a t

r u e e x t r a c t fr o m
t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

. W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. 08/20/2024