Court Opinion

ID: 9854242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:03:47.422491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:59.602817
License: Public Domain

Sognier, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur specially to note that I remain convinced that my reasons for opposing the grant of this interlocutory appeal are sound. This appeal was taken from the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for a protective order pending a prior appeal of other issues in the case. While I agree with the majority’s statement that its opinion here may authorize a trial court, in future cases, to allow discovery to continue pending appeal, it distresses me that it does so at the cost of rendering an opinion which in my view is merely advisory in nature. For these particular litigants, simply granting this interlocutory appeal granted appellant by indirection, by means of the supersedeas provision of OCGA § 5-6-46 (a), that protection which it had unsuccessfully sought below, before this court had even considered the merits of its appeal. Because no discovery could proceed in the case while this appeal was under consideration, and this court has decided the other appeals in the case contemporaneously with this one, any decision rendered here is after the fact, and thus necessarily moot.
*481Bobby Jones, for appellant.
John M. Hewson, Arnold C. Young, for appellee.