Bridges v. 20th Century Travel, Inc., No. 57399

CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
Writing for the CourtSMITH; QUILLIAN,, P. J., and BIRDSONG
Citation149 Ga.App. 837,256 S.E.2d 102
PartiesBRIDGES v. 20TH CENTURY TRAVEL, INC.
Decision Date08 May 1979
Docket NumberNo. 57399

Page 102

256 S.E.2d 102
149 Ga.App. 837
BRIDGES

v.
20TH CENTURY TRAVEL, INC.
No. 57399.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Submitted March 12, 1979.
Decided April 24, 1979.
Rehearing Denied May 8, 1979.

Page 103

[149 Ga.App. 839] Goodman, Whitmer & Buckland, James E. Goodman, F. Clay Bush, Atlanta, for appellant.

Decker, Duncan & Cooper, Richard P. Decker, Atlanta, for appellee.

[149 Ga.App. 837] SMITH, Judge.

In this interlocutory appeal, appellant Bridges contends the trial court committed an abuse of discretion when it granted appellee's motion for a protective order prohibiting certain discovery sought by appellant. We agree with that contention and reverse the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant, Johnny Harris, and Betty Carroll were the sole shareholders and directors of appellee. On November 29, 1977, appellant brought this suit seeking to have appellee comply with its obligation to purchase appellant's stock in the corporation, pursuant to a stock redemption agreement into which the three individuals and the corporation had entered on January 5, 1976. Appellee refused to comply with appellant's May 1977 demands for purchase and defended this suit upon the asserted justification that compliance with the agreement would render appellee insolvent. See Code § 22-513(e).

On October 18, 1978, appellant filed a notice to produce and a notice to take deposition upon C. M. Culpepper, the president of Buckhead House of Travel, Inc., by whom Harris and Carroll had been employed as of November 1977. Among other things, appellant's notice to produce sought discovery of information concerning any transfers of appellee's assets to Buckhead House of Travel which had been effected on or after November 1977. Appellant also sought to discover other information pertaining to Harris and Carroll and their relationship with appellee's competitor. Appellee introduced no evidence in support of its unverified motion for a [149 Ga.App. 838] protective order, which alleged that the proposed deponent possessed no information relevant to the subject matter of this suit. The trial court granted appellee's motion and entered an order canceling appellant's notices to produce and to depose.

We believe the court below abused its discretion in prohibiting appellant from pursuing his right to discover, and of particular import to us is the fact that appellee offered no evidence to support its motion. Appellee's financial status and its alleged inability to comply...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Adler, No. A01A1836.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 27 Marzo 2002
    ...grant or denial of a motion for protective order lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Bridges v. 20th Century Travel, 149 Ga.App. 837, 838-839, 256 S.E.2d 102 (1979). Protective orders are "intended to be protective—not prohibitive—and, until such time as the court is s......
  • Alexander Properties Group v. Doe, No. S05A1992.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 13 Febrero 2006
    ...denial of a motion for protective order generally lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (Bridges v. 20th Century Travel, 149 Ga.App. 837, 839, 256 S.E.2d 102 (1979)), and the exercise of that discretion is reviewed on appeal for abuse. Fulton County Bd. of Assessors v. Saks Fi......
  • Saleem v. Snow, No. A95A0117
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 14 Julio 1995
    ...have changed the outcome of the case. Therefore, denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion. Bridges v. 20th Century Travel, 149 Ga.App. 837, 256 S.E.2d 102 6. Saleem also argues that the court improperly failed to grant his request for public funds to cover transcription costs. Hi......
  • McGinn v. McGinn, No. S00A1424.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • 8 Enero 2001
    ...be protective, not prohibitive. Deloitte Haskins & Sells v. Green, supra at 379(2), 370 S.E.2d 194; Bridges v. 20th Century Travel, 149 Ga.App. 837, 839, 256 S.E.2d 102 (1979). Although the order was excessively prohibitive, the trial court still has an "obligation to assure that t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Adler, No. A01A1836.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 27 Marzo 2002
    ...grant or denial of a motion for protective order lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Bridges v. 20th Century Travel, 149 Ga.App. 837, 838-839, 256 S.E.2d 102 (1979). Protective orders are "intended to be protective—not prohibitive—and, until such time as the court is s......
  • Alexander Properties Group v. Doe, No. S05A1992.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 13 Febrero 2006
    ...denial of a motion for protective order generally lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (Bridges v. 20th Century Travel, 149 Ga.App. 837, 839, 256 S.E.2d 102 (1979)), and the exercise of that discretion is reviewed on appeal for abuse. Fulton County Bd. of Assessors v. Saks Fi......
  • Saleem v. Snow, No. A95A0117
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 14 Julio 1995
    ...have changed the outcome of the case. Therefore, denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion. Bridges v. 20th Century Travel, 149 Ga.App. 837, 256 S.E.2d 102 6. Saleem also argues that the court improperly failed to grant his request for public funds to cover transcription costs. Hi......
  • McGinn v. McGinn, No. S00A1424.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • 8 Enero 2001
    ...be protective, not prohibitive. Deloitte Haskins & Sells v. Green, supra at 379(2), 370 S.E.2d 194; Bridges v. 20th Century Travel, 149 Ga.App. 837, 839, 256 S.E.2d 102 (1979). Although the order was excessively prohibitive, the trial court still has an "obligation to assure that t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT