Millholland v. Oglesby
| Decision Date | 24 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 42220,No. 3,42220,3 |
| Citation | 155 S.E.2d 672,115 Ga.App. 715 |
| Parties | Clyde B. MILLHOLLAND v. William A. OGLESBY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
'Seasonably' as used in the Deposition and Discovery Act, Code Ann. § 38-2105(b), relative to the moving for a modifying or relieving order, means with reasonable promptness after the notice for taking of he deposition is served, and in any event no later than the date designated in the notice for the taking of the deposition. Application or motion for a relieving or modifying order should be presented as soon as the party or deponent learns that such an order is needed.
Failure to apply seasonably for a relieving or modifying order results in a failure to afford the trial court an opportunity, at the time and in the manner contemplated by the statute, to consider whether there is good cause for granting the order and when the same matter is attempted to be raised in connection with a subsequent adverse order or ruling of the court the issue is not properly raised and is not properly before us on appeal; consequently an affirmance results.
Sam D. Hewlett, Jr., Florence Hewlett Dendy, Atlanta, for appellant.
Gambrell, Harlan, Russell & Moye, Edward W. Killorin, David A. Handley, Atlanta, for appellee.
, a statement of the case will be found in Millholland v. Oglesby, 114 Ga.App. 745, 152 S.E.2d 761. The Supreme Court has reversed us. Millholland v. Oglesby, 223 Ga. 230, 154 S.E.2d 194. Consequently, we vacate our judgment. However, as we construe the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court, by its terms the reversal of our judgment is limited to the question of the appealability of an order staying an action 'for an indefinite period (requiring) the party to comply therewith or be forever barred from proceeding with his action,' and where the 'party contends that it is impossible for him to comply,' since 'such an order effectively terminates his right to trial and is a final adjudication subject to review.' In all other respects our former opinion, being in harmony with what the Supreme Court holds, stands, so we now re-affirm and re-adopt such portions as relate to other matters and proceed with a review of the judgment of the trial court.
As we pointed out in our previous opinion, when the notice to take plaintiff's deposition in Atlanta was served on his counsel there was a duty imposed on him by the statute to move for a modifying or relieving order if for good cause he could not appear at the time and place specified in the notice, and this he was required seasonably to do. No application or motion was made. He did nothing until there was a motion by the defendant to dismiss the petition because of plaintiff's failure to appear for the deposition, when he belatedly asserted that because of financial burdens it had not been possible for him to appear.
It is settled that if one has good cause to be relieved from appearing at the time or place designated in the notice he must proceed by motion seasonably made in the court where the action is pending for a modifying or relieving order. Upon a hearing of the motion or application good cause must be shown, Code Ann. § 38-2105(b); Reynolds v. Reynolds, 217 Ga. 234, 239, 123 S.E.2d 115, and the good cause must be clearly and specifically demonstrated; it will not appear from 'stereotyped and conclusory statements.' Glick v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc., D.C., 10 F.R.D. 477, Cf. Rifkin v. United States Lines Company, D.C., 177 F.Supp. 875, where an assertion of illness, neither sworn to nor supported by medical evidence, was held insufficient and there was a postponement of the hearing until the testimony of doctors who had examined movant could be obtained for consideration. Within the meaning of this section of our Deposition and Discovery Act (which is identical to Rule 30(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) 'seasonably' means before the date designated in the notice for the taking of the deposition. 'The rules do not contemplate that a party may wait until after the date designated by the opposing party for the taking of the deposition to ask a modification of the terms of the notice by the Court.' Dictograph Products, Inc. v. Kentworth Corp., D.C., 7 F.R.D. 543, 544. To the same effect see Stephens v. Sioux City & New Orleans Barge Co., D.C., 30 F.R.D 397, 399; Haney v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., 4 Cir., 330 F.2d 940, 942. A motion not made until five days after the date designated in the notice is not seasonably made. Parla v. Matson Nav. Co., D.C., 28 F.R.D. 348. It has been held to mean as soon as ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maheu v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court In and For Clark County, Dept. No. 6
...considered a motion for a protective order, it was neither 'seasonably made' nor made 'upon good cause shown.' See: Millholland v. Oglesby, 115 Ga.App. 715, 155 S.E.2d 672; Wieneke v. Chalmers, 385 P.2d 65 (N.M.1963); Stevens v. Sioux City and New Orleans Barge Lines, Inc., 30 F.R.D. 397 (W......
-
Rice v. Cannon
...Rules of Civil Procedure. Bicknell v. CBT Factors Corp., 171 Ga.App. 897, 898-899, 321 S.E.2d 383 (1984); Millholland v. Oglesby, 115 Ga. App. 715, 717, 155 S.E.2d 672 (1967) (Georgia protective order provisions based on federal provisions formerly contained in Fed. R.Civ.P. 30(b)). As the ......
-
Reams v. Composite State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 29548
...in that forum. See Millholland v. Oglesby, 114 Ga.App. 745(1 b), 152 S.E.2d 761; s.c., 223 Ga. 230, 154 S.E.2d 194; s.c., 115 Ga.App. 715, 155 S.E.2d 672. However, the cited case involved a plaintiff residing in Ohio who filed a personal injury suit in Fulton County and thereafter failed to......
- Morris v. State, 42765