811 S.E.2d 20
Ga. Ct. App.2018Background
- CEI Services obtained a default judgment against Sosebee in 2011 and later claimed Sosebee had not completed settlement payments.
- In 2016 CEI served post-judgment discovery seeking information about payments; Sosebee moved for a protective order and requested attorney fees.
- The trial court heard the motion, continued the initial hearing to allow the parties to confer, then granted the protective order and awarded $1,100 in attorney fees to Sosebee.
- The trial court's fee award expressly relied on OCGA § 9-15-14(b), a statute allowing fees for frivolous or improperly expanded litigation.
- CEI appealed, arguing (1) Sosebee failed to comply with USCR 6.4(B)’s good-faith conference/certification requirement before filing the motion, and (2) OCGA § 9-15-14(b) does not authorize fees for post-judgment discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether granting protective order was reversible for failure to comply with USCR 6.4(B) | CEI: Sosebee failed to confer in good faith and did not file the required certification; therefore order should be reversed | Sosebee: Parties substantially complied; the record shows conferences and the court recessed the matter to allow conferral | Court: Substantial compliance demonstrated; no reversible error in granting protective order |
| Whether trial court could award fees under OCGA § 9-15-14(b) for post-judgment discovery | CEI: Fees improper because OCGA § 9-15-14 does not apply to post-judgment discovery | Sosebee: Fees warranted; alternatively fees authorized under OCGA § 9-11-37(a)(4) for motions for protective order | Court: Fee award under OCGA § 9-15-14(b) was erroneous and vacated; remanded for reconsideration under OCGA § 9-11-37(a)(4)(A) (which permits fees for granted protective orders unless opposition was substantially justified) |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga. v. Ambati, 299 Ga. App. 804 (court upheld protective order despite initial Rule 6.4 violation where parties conferred and dispute was unresolved)
- RL BB ACQ I-GA CVL, LLC v. Workman, 341 Ga. App. 127 (discusses timing and consideration of fee awards under OCGA § 9-11-37(a)(4))
- Padilla v. Padilla, 282 Ga. 273 (construing procedural requirements and appellate review standards)