Bridges v. 20th Century Travel, Inc., 57399
| Decision Date | 08 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 57399,57399 |
| Citation | 149 Ga.App. 837,256 S.E.2d 102 |
| Parties | BRIDGES v. 20TH CENTURY TRAVEL, INC. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Goodman, Whitmer & Buckland, James E. Goodman, F. Clay Bush, Atlanta, for appellant.
Decker, Duncan & Cooper, Richard P. Decker, Atlanta, for appellee.
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 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 with the stock redemption agreement were the cornerstones of appellee's defense, and we cannot say appellant's attempted discovery would have failed to reveal information relevant to the case. "Discovery is not limited to matters that are admissible in evidence at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Code Ann. § 81A-126(b)(1) (). '(T)his procedure is to be given a liberal construction in favor of supplying a party with the facts underlying his opponent's case, and this without reference to whether the facts sought on discovery are admissible upon the trial of the action.' Setzer's Super Stores v. Higgins, 104 Ga.App. 116, 120, 121 S.E.2d 305.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gen. Motors, LLC v. Buchanan
...in "annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense."6 Bullard , in turn, relied on Bridges v. 20th Century Travel , 149 Ga. App. 837, 838-839, 256 S.E.2d 102 (1979), and Intl. Ser. Ins. Co. v. Bowen , 130 Ga. App. 140, 144, 202 S.E.2d 540 (1973). These cases both quote lan......
-
Alexander Properties Group v. Doe, S05A1992.
...or 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......
-
McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Adler
...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 satisf......
-
Saleem v. Snow
...not 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 (1979). 6. Saleem also argues that the court improperly failed to grant his request for public funds to cover transcripti......