IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON C I..

STATE OF GEORGIA

FILED
IN OFFICE
~

UJ:Ij

SEP 0 3 2014

~l-

STACEY KALBERMAN,

DEPUTY CLERI< SUPERIOR COURT

FU!_TON COUNTY, GA

Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action No.

Honorable

GEORGIA GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY

AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMMISSION,
et al.,

2012CV216247

Ural D.

Glanville

Motion for Sanctions

Defendants.

o
The

above-captioned

Plaintiff's
11-37,

matter is presently before

"Motion for Sanctions Under O.C.G.A.

15-1-3."

&

R D E R

Transparency
Defendant

(Doc.

and

no.

Campaign

LaBerge,

(" Department") oppose the instant

On August
instant

2014,

Attorney

the

Court

including

motion,

testimony

stated,

25,

argument

by Defendant LaBerge
General

for

the

the

Ironically,

(Doc.

nos.

Following

of

O.C.G.A.
2,

the

11,

59,

transfer

case

45-1-4,

Georgia's

Compl.,

Am.

of

as

(Doc.

the

no.

the

well

Office

For

Georgia.

Law

as

of the
reasons

130).

BACKGROUND

above-captioned

Webb,

132-134).

concerning

Counsel,
K.

of

nos.

hearing

by

and Bryan

State

I .

under

(Doc.

the instant motion is GRANTED.

infra,

claim

held

Government

Department

motion.

9-

("Commission")

Commission

Georgia

the

9-15-14(b),

Defendant Georgia

130).
Finance

and

the Court on

the

Compl.,

involves

Plaintiff's

Whistleblower
Second

above-captioned

Am.

case

Statute.
Compl.).
to

this

Di vision,

the

deadlines,
case.

Court

policies,

to

impaneled

jury

(Doc.

126).

this

Defendants

settlement of
(Doc.

Plaintiff

light

found for Plaintiff

Subsequently,

telephone
connection

owe
the
no.

Case

containing

above-captioned

Management

that,

under

members

non-wage

Order

the Civil

the

may

and

result

in

several days,

the

in the amount of $700,000.00.1

the

Court entered a Consent

Order

the parties consented and agreed

compensatory

in
damages

compromise
and

and

litigation

127).

television
of

conversations
with

obligation

Plaintiff $1,150,000.00,

contends that,

LaBerge's

that

the

After a trial lasting

Acknowledging Settlement, wherein

Defendant

the

the parties

fulfill

at 1)

(rd.

expenses.

governing

Order,

they have a duty to fully cooperate in discovery

sanctions."

that

Management

Notably,

42) .

failure

the

no.

Case

"[T] he Court reminds

Practice Act,
that

and procedures

no.

(Doc.

provides,

entered

through
interviews,

Governor
and

various

Deal's

text messages,

investigation

media

reports

it has recently
Office

forming the basis

come to

threatened,

Defendant
of

and

in

LaBerge in
the

above-

As chronicled in the Court's February 7, 2014 Order denying Defendants'

Motion
for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff was previously employed by Defendant Commission
as Executive Secretary.
(Doc.
no.
98,
p. 1).
Between March and May 2010,
Plaintiff became aware of third-party complaints against gubernatorial candidate
Nathan Deal concerning campaign finance compliance
with the Georgia Campaign
Finance Act, ultimately resulting in the drafting of certain subpoenas.
(Id. at
2) .
After Plaintiff
presented
the subpoenas to the Commission,
Plaintiff's
tenure as Executive
Secretary
ended.
(Id.
at 1-2).
Although the parties
disputed the basis and nature of the termination,
the verdict represents
the
Jury's unquestionable finding that, in violation of O.C.G.A.
45-1-4,
Plaintiff
was retaliated
against based upon the disclosure of a violation of, or noncompliance with, Georgia's Campaign Finance Act.
1

captioned
that

(Doc.

complaint.

Defendant

LaBerge

communications

to

memorialized,

at

the

Abernethy,

the

that,

responses

to

subj ect

LaBerge
and

failed

sanctions

based

In

pertinent

course

of

The

Counsel
of

bad

explains

Department
responsive
produced

the

production

maintains
to

Office
of
that,

Plaintiff's
in

discovery.

(Id.

Defendant

communications
had

at

counters

that,

during

e-mails

and

(Doc.

no.

the

at

The

5).

other
pp.

3-

allegations

at

Memorandum
it

the

resulting

(Id.

requests,

impose

deposition,

concerning
Governor,

been

11-24).

132,

a certain

Memorandum.

discovery

3-4).

(Id.

the

because

at

abuses.

LaBerge

the

the

all

the

Court

following

of

(Id.

documents

employees.

Defendant

include

the

Webb produced

that,

in

Defendants'

not

that

Kevin

Plaintiff

deposition,

requests

Department

Counsel

2-3).

did

of

LaBerge

messages

requests,

relevant

discovery

the

at

2013

these

Chairman

text

existence
all

by Commission

from
and

that

faith

Webb questioned

pressure

the

Defendant

messages.

31,

Plaintiff

part,

Department

text

July

reveal

6).

upon

produced

disclosure

or

at

discovery,

documents
4).

to

indicating

(Id.

and

asserts

preserve,

Commission

requests

or
a

that

discovery

e-mails,
at

to

(Id.

discovery

that

Memorandum,

produced.

several

Plaintiff's

again

and

of

Plaintiff

effort

conversations

despite

explains

an

account

direction

2).

p.

("Memorandum").

Memorandum,

Plaintiff

in

personal

Record

maintains

130,

e-mailed,

telephone

Memorandum of

no.

was

not

in

4).

The

was

not

disclosed

Department

also

explains

that,

disclose

the

these
The

because
subj ect

documents

to

LaBerge

then

e-mails

were also

Department

related

Defendant

submits

the

the

text

messages

disclosed
as

to

to

produce

Counsel
(Id.

or produced.

result

rise

existence

failed

to

of

various

this

or

Webb,
at

Commission

lawsuits

matter,

Defendant

of the Memorandum

and

other

notwithstanding

that,

asserts

requirements in the Consent

Order,

Plaintiff failed

to

the

file a

dismissal after negotiating the settlement checks, and thus,

Court

lacks

Similarly,
agreement

jurisdiction.

no.

(Doc.

bars Plaintiff's

sought-after

to relief under O.C.G.A.

is untimely,

Plaintiff

award would be
states that,

(Id.

unj ust .

(Id.

at

at

violation;

that the

reasons:
(2)

(1)

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

is

showing,

and an

Defendant Commission

11-19).

has failed

Defendant

(Id.

Plaintiff
not

Commission

to show that the Commission

at 3-5).

instant motion should

has

7-11).

because the motion

9-11-37

Finally,

committed any discovery abuses.

following

that

at

15-1-3, discovery sanctions are not

19-21).

concludes that Plaintiff

argues

settlement

(Id.

relief.

the
5-7) .

1-2,

the

has not made the required

under O.C.G.A.

authorized.

summarily

that

Defendant Commission maintains

not entitled

pp.

134,

argues

Commission

Defendant

Alternatively,

6).

at 6-7).

(Id.

Defendant

not

giving

disclosed

communications.

or

that,

events

LaBerge

has
shown

not
a

Defendant LaBerge
be denied for
shown

legal

basis

the

discovery
for

the

sought-after
after

relief;

relief;

Plaintiff's
Plaintiff;
harm.

(4)

(3)
the

claims;
and

(Doc.

(6)

no.

the settlement
disclosed

(5)

the

agreement

information

disclosed

Plaintiff

has

is

bars the soughtnot

information

not

relevant
was

established

known

prejudice

to
to
or

135).

II.

DISCUSSION OF LAW

As an initial matter, a brief discussion concerning the basic

nature of discovery would be particularly appropriate in light of
the instant dispute.

Under the Civil Practice Act,

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not

privileged,
which is relevant to the subject matter
invol ved in the pending action, whether it relates to
the claim or defense
including the existence,
description, nature, custody, condition, and location of
any books, documents, or other tangible things and the
identity and location of persons having knowledge of any
discoverable matter.
O.C.G.A.

reasonably
evidence."

9-l1-26(b)
calculated
Of

Id.

broad scope of

Information is relevant if

(1).
to

lead

course,

discovery

is

to

the

discovery

discovery

of

tempered by O.C.G.A.

shown, courts may,

protect

embarrassment,

party

undue burden.

from

annoyance,

O.C.G.A.

9-11-26(c).

Simply put,

potential for secrecy and hiding of material."

v.

Cunningham,

245

Ga.

App.

736,

738

and the

9-1l-26(c),
inter

alia,

oppression,

or

\\ [t] he goal of

discovery is the fair resolution of legal disputes,

Co.

admissible

is not unlimited,

which states that, for good cause

a

it "appears

to remove the
Int'l Harvester

(2000)

(quotations

omitted);

see

also

O.C.G.A.

24-1-1

("The

object of all legal

investigation is the discovery of truth.").

Wi thout question, the subj ect Memorandum,
messages were

relevant to

the claims and

Indeed,

above-captioned complaint.

e-mails,

issues

disclosure

and text

raised

in

the

of the Memorandum,

e-mails, and text messages would have likely led to the discovery
of

admissible

evidence

at

Nevertheless,

trial.

despite

the

directives contained in the Case Management Order and the Civil

Practice Act,
cooperate

in

the

Department

LaBerge

and

Memorandum,

the

and

Law

of

text

more prudent course

of action

would

and seek guidance from the

legal issues

side of transparency
raised

in

this

and a

Above all,
have found,

stated

by

former

Director

fair

arguendo,

resolution

purportedly

of

the

their

rather than

Department

I would teach him to tell the truth.

is the key to responsible citizenship.

the

that these documents

of

the

chose nonfor her own

Finally, although

personal reasons, secrecy and document-hiding.2

As succinctly
Investigation,

produce

However,

the

chose,

that,

of these documents,

Court.

to

Defendant

have been to disclose

matter,

disclosure and Defendant LaBerge

to

failed

finds

Assuming,

believed

based upon the nature

on the

Court

failed

were non-responsive,

erring

the

messages.

Defendant LaBerge and the Department

existence

LaBerge

Plaintiff's discovery requests,

Department

e-mails,

Defendant

Specifically,

discovery.

although responsive to

and

the

Federal

Bureau

Truth-telling,

of

the Court

is

somewhat

by the Department,
of Defendant
throughout

sympathetic

the Court

LaBerge,

who

with

the ethical

is extremely

has

been

position

troubled

dishonest

faced

by the behavior

and

non-transparent

these proceedings.

Confronted

with

Department of Law,

the

conduct

of

Defendant

the Court is left with

determining what action, if any,

LaBerge

and

the

the unenviable task of

should be taken to address the

failure to comply with the Civil Practice

Act and Case Management

In this regard, O. C. G. A.

provides, "Every court

Order.

[tjo control, in the furtherance of justice, the

has power .
conduct of
judicial

its

has

the

,,3

Court of

Pennington

of

v.

Edgar Hoover,

has

judicial

Pennington,

has

under O.C.G.A.
J.

153,

155

15-1-3,

every

15-1-3 (4)
repeatedly

to

control

proceeding
291

Ga.

the

(emphasis

the

the

165

that,

Court must

What I Would Tell a Son,

of

everyone

trial

court.4

(2012);

Bayless

v.

the Georgia Court

prior
afford

Family Weekly,

As the

a trial court

conduct

before

appertaining

added).

explained,

165,

explained

connected wi th

matter

To that end,

(2006).

succinctly

in

it,

O.C.G.A.

authority

280 Ga.

Appeals

before

Georgia

inherent

connected with

Bayless,

officers and all other persons

proceeding

thereto
Supreme

15-1-3

to

sanctioning

notice

July 14,

and an

1963.

Similarly, O.C.G.A.
15-6-9
states, "The judges of the superior courts have
"[t] 0 perform any and all other acts required of them at
authority
chambers".
. "and to exercise all other powers necessarily appertaining to
their jurisdiction or which may be granted them by law." O.C.G.A.
15-6-9.
3

Indeed,
trial courts have
business of the court . .

"discretion
in regulating
Scocca v. Wilt, 243 Ga. 2,
7

and controlling
2 (1979).

the

opportunity
App.

649,

to
659

motion,

principles

the

the

to

in

Civil

in

the

the

Case

disregard

for

the

the

fair

resolution

of

legal

also

an

injustice

citizens

this

is

ci ted
to

the

Court

as

the

Inc.,

it

of

finds

striking
with

that

of
only

one

Act

and

only

governing

284

Ga.

to

the

of

the

confidence

the

Court's

and

the

the

by

Indeed,

by

above-

the

authority
a

has

judicial
rendered

involves

other

imposition

sanctions,

Simply

infeasible.

but

imposed

conduct
of

and

Georgia,

jury

the imposition

recourse,

to

with

impaneled

case

amounts

inherent

connected

the

mandate

system.

contemplated

the

the

of

legal

discovery

litigation

State

in

pleadings,

basic

the

individuals

above-captioned

Court

left

to

because

the

in

conduct

relates

opposition

not

rules

Georgia
of

with

Order

disputes

type

in

Practice

basic

of

conduct

the

the

is

State

as

comply

undermining

Furthermore,
in

non-party,

an

the

authority,

verdict

such

the

precisely

proceeding.
a

and

of

control

Hosp.,

asserted

Management

flagrant

the

Piedmont

arguments

failure

contained

contained

v.

(2007).

Notwithstanding
instant

Whitley

be heard.

put,

the

of

monetary

is

GRANTED.

sanctions.
III.
For
(Doc.

the

no.

reasons

130).

stated,

Although

of

monetary

sanctions

of

Georgia,

who are

the

supra,
the

causes
forced

CONCLUSION

Court
more

to bear

is

instant
aware

financial
the

motion
that

pain

continued

the
to

imposition

the

burden

citizens
resulting

from the events

giving

has

recourse

no

other
and

Department,
repeatedly

proven

Accordingly,
capaci ty,

the

most

total

when

the

to

of

capacity,

the Court

conduct
LaBerge,

and

the

who

has

non-transparent.

individual
ORDERED

of

and

personal

to pay Plaintiff
the

reasonable
In this

with the instant motion.

in

and the Department

are

Failure to comply with

the

representing

LaBerge,

Defendant

her

HEREBY

$20,000.00,

li tigation expenses associated

regard,

dishonest
in

are

with

case,

Defendant

be

LaBerge,

Department

amount

faced

appallingly,

herself

Defendant
and

rise to the above-captioned

her

individual

ORDERED

and

personal

to each pay $10,000.00.

the terms of this Order by September

22,

2014, may result in an order of contempt.

SO ORDERED

this

~(~

day

of

2014,

at Atlanta,

Georgia.
Ural D. Glan ille, Judge
Fulton County Superior Court
Atlanta Judicial Circuit
Copies to:
KIMBERLY A. WORTH
Five Concourse Pkwy, NE, Suite 2600
Atlanta, Georgia 303028

BRYAN K. WEBB

40 Capital Square, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
GEORGE M. WEAVER

2921 Piedmont Road, NE, Suite C

Atlanta, Georgia 30305
EDWARD H. LINDSEY
3340 Peachtree Road, NE,
Atlanta, Georgia 30326

ALISA PITTMAN CLEEK

220 Peachtree Street, NE,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Suite 2100

Suite 800