Rta Strategy LLC v. Silver Comet Terminal Partners, LLC
A18I0045
| Ga. Ct. App. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- Applicants (Chip Lake, The Committee to Protect Paulding County, RTA Strategy LLC, and others) sought interlocutory review after the trial court granted a motion to compel OCGA § 9-11-60(b)(6) depositions and denied their motions for protective orders.
- The trial court concluded the information sought was not protected by attorney-client privilege or 501(c)(4) organizational privilege because the opposing party made a prima facie showing that the crime-fraud exception applied.
- Applicants requested a certificate of immediate review under OCGA § 5-6-34(b); the trial court denied that certificate.
- Applicants filed interlocutory applications with the Court of Appeals, arguing the order was immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine or, alternatively, that the Waldrip exception justified review despite the lack of a certificate.
- The Court of Appeals evaluated jurisdictional grounds and applicable precedent concerning immediate appeals of discovery and privilege rulings.
- The Court dismissed the applications for lack of jurisdiction: discovery orders rejecting privilege claims are not collateral orders, and the Waldrip exception did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court's order compelling depositions and rejecting privilege is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine | The order conclusively resolves important rights (privilege) and is immediately appealable | Discovery orders are interlocutory; collateral order doctrine does not extend to such privilege rulings | Not appealable under the collateral order doctrine; precedent bars immediate review of discovery privilege rulings |
| Whether the Court should bypass the interlocutory certificate requirement under Waldrip | Waldrip exception applies because the denial of review thwarts meaningful appellate review of a significant issue | The case does not present the exceptional public-importance circumstances Waldrip requires; normal interlocutory procedures apply | Waldrip exception not met; court will not excuse failure to obtain certificate of immediate review |
| Whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to consider the interlocutory applications absent a certificate | Applicants argue jurisdiction exists via collateral order or Waldrip | Court of Appeals contends lack of certificate deprives it of jurisdiction | Court lacks jurisdiction; applications dismissed |
| Whether a prima facie showing of crime-fraud can defeat attorney-client and 501(c)(4) privileges at discovery stage | Applicants contend privileges protect the materials and depositions | Opposing party made prima facie showing of crime-fraud exception, supporting the trial court's decision | Trial court found prima facie showing sufficient; appellate court did not reach merits due to lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Waldrip v. State, 272 Ga. 572 (2000) (Supreme Court carved narrow exception excusing certificate requirement where trial court action effectively precludes appellate review in exceptional public-importance cases)
- Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 305 Ga. App. 450 (2010) (collateral order doctrine does not permit immediate review of trial court orders rejecting attorney-client privilege where crime-fraud exception is found)
- Scruggs v. Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587 (1991) (appellate courts generally will not review a trial court's exercise of discretion to grant or deny a certificate of immediate review)
- B & D Fabricators v. D.H. Blair Inv. Banking Corp., 220 Ga. App. 373 (1996) (reinforces that interlocutory certificate procedures must be followed and are within trial court discretion)