Case Information
*1 Case 2:17-cv-00209-RWS Document 83 Filed 11/29/18 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION WILLIAM R. DEAL, :
:
Plaintiff, :
: v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. : 2:17-CV-209-RWS TUGALO GAS COMPANY, :
INC., et al., :
:
Defendants. :
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 66] and Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Auditor [Doc. No. 76]. I. Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 66]
Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of his direct action claims for punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The Court improperly dismissed these direct action claims as punitive damages and attorneys’ fees are authorized for claims that remain in the case. Plaintiff’s Motion [Doc. No. 66] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages and attorneys’ fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 in connection with his pending fraud and conspiracy claims may proceed. The portion of the Court’s earlier order holding AO 72A (Rev.8/8 2)
*2 Case 2:17-cv-00209-RWS Document 83 Filed 11/29/18 Page 2 of 2 otherwise [Doc. No. 54] is hereby VACATED.
II. Motion to Appoint Auditor [Doc. No. 76]
Plaintiff has filed a renewed motion requesting that the Court appoint an auditor. Under O.C.G.A. § 9-7-2, a court may refer any part of the facts of a case to an auditor upon motion of any party or upon its own motion. Under O.C.G.A. § 9-7-3, a court may appoint an auditor in cases “involving matters of account.” Under either section, the appointment of an auditor is “a matter largely vested in the discretion of the court.” See, e.g., Stapleton v. Sky Valley, 363 S.E.2d 48, 48
(Ga. Ct. App. 1987) (citation omitted). The Court has reviewed the parties’ arguments and finds that appointment of an auditor is unnecessary in the present posture of the case. The discovery period in this case has opened, and Plaintiff can obtain the documents he seeks through the discovery process. He can also retain an expert to review and interpret these documents. As a result, Plaintiff’s Motion [Doc. No. 76] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED , this 29th day of November, 2018.
2
AO 72A (Rev.8/8 2)