John F. Woodham v. Atlanta Development Authority, 335 Ga. App. 126

Background

Woodham and Citizens for Ethics in Government intervened in a 2008 bond-validation case; the trial court ultimately ordered them to pay $303,141.89 in attorney fees and expenses. Prior appellate proceedings remanded part of that award for statutory explanation and imposed frivolous-appeal penalties on both appellants.
The Atlanta Development Authority sought post-judgment discovery in 2014 to collect the award; Woodham (pro se, and counsel for Citizens) appeared for a deposition but refused to answer most questions and later failed to comply with court-ordered discovery dates.
After a June 13, 2014 order compelling discovery, Woodham moved to recuse the judge; that judge voluntarily recused. A successor judge found Woodham (but not Citizens) in contempt for willfully disobeying July 24–25 discovery orders and ordered depositions and discovery to be completed.
The contempt order conditioned purge on providing discovery and reimbursing the Authority $18,862.74 in legal fees and costs the court found incurred because of Woodham’s contempt; the court also ordered arrest until purge occurred. Woodham appealed and sought supersedeas; the trial court later ordered a supersedeas bond in that $18,862.74 amount (applied to Woodham and, improperly, Citizens).
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of recusal (except it found timeliness issues only for one ground), affirmed the contempt finding, but reversed the contempt order to the extent it required payment of fees/costs to purge because those fees had not been previously awarded; it also reversed the supersedeas bond order.

Issues

Issue	Woodham's Argument	Authority's Argument	Held
Denial of recusal	Judge had campaign-contribution ties and staff ex parte scheduling contacts; court disregarded his request to postpone discovery	Motion untimely as to some grounds; recusal unwarranted on merits	Denial affirmed: motion untimely as to emergency ground; alleged $500 contribution and scheduling ex parte contacts did not warrant recusal
Ability to compel post-judgment discovery	Discovery improper because Authority had not filed civil case disposition form; insufficient notice for deposition	Discovery proper; Woodham consented to July 25 order	Claim waived by Woodham’s consent to the discovery order; appeal on substance barred
Finding of civil contempt	Noncompliance justified by legal emergency; recusal pending should bar contempt	Wilful disobedience of court orders supports contempt	Contempt affirmed: record shows wilful refusal to comply with July 24–25 orders
Conditioning purge on payment of fees/costs	Purge conditioned on paying $18,862.74 unlawful because fees had not been previously awarded	Fees reflect costs caused by contempt and may condition purge	Reversed insofar as purge required payment of fees/costs not previously awarded; supersedeas bond reversed accordingly

Key Cases Cited

Citizens for Ethics in Government, LLC v. Atlanta Dev. Auth., 303 Ga. App. 724 (prior appeal addressing fee award and remand) (2010) (background and prior appellate history)
Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 291 Ga. 114 (rules on de novo review of recusal timeliness) (2012) (timeliness/legal-sufficiency standard for recusal affidavits)
Gude v. State, 289 Ga. 46 (recusal not warranted for modest campaign contributions) (2011) (small contributions alone do not require recusal)
Lue v. Eady, 297 Ga. 321 (ex parte scheduling communications rarely require recusal) (2015) (scheduling ex parte contacts generally not prohibited)
Horn v. Shepherd, 292 Ga. 14 (civil contempt limits and purge-condition authority) (2012) (court may not condition purge on fees not previously awarded)
Considine v. Murphy, 327 Ga. App. 110 (consent to order waives appellate challenge to its substance) (2014) (consent forfeits later attack on discovery order)
Edwards v. Edwards, 254 Ga. App. 849 (willful noncompliance with orders risks contempt) (2002) (party who ignores orders assumes contempt risk)