Georgia State University College of Law: Reading Room

Fowke, Gerard

Creating Opportunities to do Legal Research in Other Courses

Cunningham, Clark

Republicans Call for Impeachment Inquiry Into Biden - a Process the Founders Intended To Deter Abuse of Power as Well as Remove From Office

Georgia’s recent expansion of concealed carry creates safety problems for public events within the state’s parks. Exploring Georgia’s gun laws, this Article examines possible loopholes and addresses growing concerns

Miller, Mackenzie

English

Shooting in the Park: Distinguishing Public from Private Property Under Georgia’s Firearms Carrying Laws

Ellerbe, Kelly L.

Georgia State University College of Law 
Reading Room 
Georgia Business Court Opinions 
1-5-2023 
Galaxy Next Gen. v. Elhert, Order on Discovery Issues 
Kelly L. Ellerbe 
Follow this and additional works at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/businesscourt 
 Part of the Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics Commons, Business Organizations Law 
Commons, and the Contracts Commons 
SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY 
STATE OF GEORGIA 
GALAXY NEXT GENERATION, INC., 
CIVIL ACTION FILE 
Plaintiff, NO. 2021CV352606 
v. 
BRADLEY EHLERT, 
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff, 
V. 
GALAXY NEXT GENERATION, INC., EHLERT 
SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC., INTERLOCK 
CONCEPTS, INC., GARY LECROY, MAGEN 
MCGAHEE, WADE WALKER, TPI BUSINESS 
CONSULTANTS, LLC, BECKY QUINTANA, 
and SOMERSET CPAS, P.C., 
e
T
 
S
S
 
SS
 
SS
 
A
S
 
eS 
eS 
S
S
 
Counterclaim Defendants. 
ORDER ON DISCOVERY ISSUES 
 
This matter comes before the Court on two separate discovery issues 
involving: (1) Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Galaxy Next Generation, Inc.’s 
(“Galaxy’s”) effort to “claw back” a privileged document produced in an earlier, 
related action filed in Utah (the “Claw-Back Dispute”) and (2) 
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Bradley Ehlert’s (“Ehlert’s”) request for the Court 
to reconsider its earlier decision denying Ehlert’s effort to obtain banking
Fulton County Superior Court
   ***EFILED***AC
Date: 1/5/2023 4:41 PM
Cathelene Robinson, Clerk
information regarding a Galaxy-affiliated entity (the “R & G Dispute”). As these 
parties have been embroiled in some complicated and costly discovery 
disagreements, the Court directed these two disputes be presented via short letter 
briefs. (See 1 Am. CMO § 8.A.) Having reviewed record and considered the letter 
briefs, the Court enters this order addressing each dispute separately. ! 
1. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
“[A] trial court has broad discretion to control all discovery matters.” Smith 
v. Northside Hosp., Inc., 347 Ga. App. 700, 703 (2018). Georgia law allows for 
wide-ranging discovery such that “parties may obtain discovery regarding any 
matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending 
action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery 
(punctuation and citation omitted).” Id.; see also O.C.G.A. § 9-1 1-26(b). 
The Court’s wide discovery to control discovery extends to “the imposition 
of sanctions.” Day v. Mason, 357 Ga. App. 836, 842 (2020). 
* All four of the Galaxy and Ehlert letter briefs have been placed into the record by virtue of a Notice of Filing Letter 
Briefs and an Order to File Documents Under Seal, entered contemporaneously herewith. 
2
2. THE CLAW-BACK DISPUTE 
2.1 Background 
2.1.1 The September 18, 2019 Email 
The Claw-Back Dispute concerns a September 18, 2019 email communication 
sent to two Galaxy officers from an accounting firm, Somerset CPAs, P.C. 
(“Somerset”), employed by Galaxy (the “Email”).? In the Email, Somerset outlined 
its assessment of the payroll tax liabilities of two companies that Ehlert sold to 
Galaxy. That sale is a key subject of this action. As to the significance of this Email, 
Ehlert claims, “it is likely dispositive on Galaxy’s fraudulent nondisclosure claim 
with respect to those payroll tax liabilities.” (Ehlert Claw-Back Brf. 1.) Ehlert does 
not contest Galaxy’s assertion that this particular email was privileged under 
Georgia law. See O.C.G.A. § 43-3-29(b). However, he suggests that Galaxy has 
waived any such privilege for the reasons detailed below. 
2.1.2 Galaxy Discloses the Email to Ehlert in Prior Utah Action 
Galaxy and Ehlert were previously engaged in litigation in Utah involving 
many of the same disputes at issue here (the “Utah Action”). (Ord. on Mot. for 
Abatement, Dismissal, Restructuring and Sanctions 2-3.) Both parties agree that, 
unlike Georgia, Utah does not recognize an accountant-client privilege. (Galaxy 
Claw-Back Brf. n. 2; Ehlert Claw-Back Brf. 1.) 
? A copy of the Email is attached to Ehlert’s Claw-Back Brief as Exhibit B. 
4 
J
Utah law requires the parties to make certain discovery disclosures at the 
outset of most civil cases. UT R RCP Rule 26(a)(1).3 On July 30, 2020, Galaxy and 
certain other parties to the Utah Action submitted their Rule 26 Initial Disclosures 
which included a copy of the Email (the “Initial Disclosures”).4 Galaxy’s current 
counsel also represented it in the Utah Action. (Ehlert Claw-Back Brf. Ex. A 1, 14.) 
2.1.3 Galaxy’s Demand for Return of the Email in this Action 
In early August of 2021, the Utah Action was dismissed. (Ord. on Mot. for 
Abatement, Dismissal, Restructuring and Sanctions 3.) During that same general 
time frame, in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Galaxy commenced an action 
3 Subject to certain exceptions not appliable here, UT R RCP Rule 26(a)(1) requires that, according to deadlines set 
by the rule, 
a party must, without waiting for a discovery request, serve on the other parties: 
(A) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of: 
(i) each individual likely to have discoverable information supporting its claims 
or defenses, unless solely for impeachment, identifying the subjects of the 
information; and ° 
(ii) each fact witness the party may call in its case-in-chief and, except for an 
adverse party, a summary of the expected testimony; 
(B) a copy of all documents, data compilations, electronically stored information, and 
tangible things in the possession or control of the party that the party may offer in its 
case-in-chief, except charts, summaries, and demonstrative exhibits that have not yet 
been prepared and must be disclosed in accordance with paragraph (a)(5); 
(C) a computation of any damages claimed and a copy of all discoverable documents or 
evidentiary material on which such computation is based, including materials about 
the nature and extent of injuries suffered; 
(D) a copy of any agreement under which any person may be liable to satisfy part or all of 
a judgment or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment; 
and 
(E) a copy of all documents to which a party refers in its pleadings. 
+ A copy of the Initial Disclosures is attached to Ehlert’s Claw-Back Brief as Ex. A. 
4
against Ehlert, and soon thereafter Ehlert commenced an action against Galaxy and 
several other Defendants including Somerset. (Id. 3-4.) The two matters were 
subsequently consolidated into this action with Somerset now proceeding as a 
Counterclaim Defendant. (Id. 5, 20.) 
The present dispute involving the Email first came to light in early October 
2022 when “Somerset produced a log of thousands of documents withheld pursuant 
to Galaxy’s instructions, primarily based on assertions of the accountant-client 
privilege.” (Galaxy Claw-Back Brf., 1.) The following day Ehlert’s counsel advised 
Galaxy’s counsel he already had a copy of the Email which had been obtained more 
than two years earlier through the Initial Disclosures in the Utah Action. (Id.) 
Immediately Galaxy’s counsel sought to “claw back” the Email, claiming it 
had been produced “inadvertently” in the Utah action. (Id.) Ehlert’s counsel denied 
Galaxy’s claw-back request, disclaiming any obligation to return the document. (Id.; 
Ehlert Claw-Back Brf. 1.) As described by Galaxy, the parties engaged in some 
fervent discussions regarding the legal and professional obligations of Ehlert’s 
counsel regarding use of the Email while issues regarding its privileged status were 
being discussed and/or litigated. (Id. 2.) Galaxy claims Ehlert’s counsel “pledge[d] 
to sequester and refrain from using the Email” pending an in camera review by the 
Court. (Id.) According to Galaxy, Ehlert’s counsel failed to honor this promise by, 
among other actions, attaching the Email to discovery requests and using it in a
deposition.’ (Id.) Ehlert’s counsel denies having made any promise to limit his use 
of the Email. (Ehlert Claw-Back Brf. 1.) 
2.2 Analysis 
Galaxy argues Ehlert and his counsel have directly violated several legal 
provisions and professional obligations by disclosing the Email after receiving the 
claw-back demand but before disputes regarding its privileged status were resolved. 
(Galaxy Claw-Back Brrf. 3.) 
First, Galaxy claims Ehlert violated USCR 5.5(2) which provides: 
[i]f information produced in discovery is subject to a claim of privilege 
or of protection as trial preparation material, the party making the claim 
may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the 
basis for it. The producing party shall preserve the information until the 
claim is resolved. After being notified, a party: 
a. Shall promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified 
information and any copies thereof; 
b. Shall not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; 
c. Shall take reasonable steps to retrieve the information if the party 
disclosed it before being notified; and 
d. May promptly present the information to the court for in camera 
review for determination of the claim. 
Galaxy has cited no authority where this provision is used in relation to discovery 
obtained in a prior action. More notably, Galaxy has cited no authority where this 
> Galaxy claims Ehlert’s disclosures of the Email occurred both before and after this purported agreement. (Galaxy 
Claw-Back Brf. 2.)
provision is applied to discovery obtained in an action pending in another state. The 
rules themselves suggest their reach is not so ranging. See USCR 1.4 (The USCR 
“are to be given statewide application.”) The Court finds Ehlert’s counsel did not 
violate USCR 5.5(2) in its handling of the Email. 
Second, Galaxy argues Ehlert’s counsel violated the Court’s Protective Order 
which Galaxy claims requires Ehlert “to return to the producing party” a document 
that the producing party claims was inadvertently produced. (Id.) However, Galaxy 
ignores the fact that the claw-back provisions of the Protective Order expressly 
address discovery that “is subject to a claim of attorney-client or attorney-work 
product...” (Protec. Ord. § 10.)° Based on the privilege at issue, the Court finds 
no violation of the Protective Order. 
Third, Galaxy asserts the recent disclosures of Ehlert’s counsel violate Utah 
law. (Galaxy Claw-Back Brf. 3.) Galaxy relies on Rule 510(b) of the Utah Rules of 
Evidence which provides “[e]vidence of a statement or other disclosure of privileged 
matter is not admissible against the holder of the privilege of the privilege if 
disclosure was compelled erroneously or made without opportunity to claim 
privilege.” First, this Utah law is not applicable to this proceeding. Further, even 
if it were and the Court found Galaxy was erroneously compelled to produce the 
° The Court notes the Protective Order, including its J 10 addressing the inadvertent production of privileged 
documents, closely tracks the protective order that Galaxy requested the Court to enter. (Compare Protec. Order 
with Pl./Countercl. Def.’s Resp. in Opp. to Def. / Countercl. Pl.’s Mot. to Compel and the Galaxy Parties’ Motion 
for Entry of a Protec. Ord. 10, Ex. A-1.)
Email or produced the Email without opportunity to claim privilege, this evidentiary 
rule would only govern the admissibility of the Email into evidence. That question 
is not presently before the Court. Galaxy also cites to an ethics provision governing 
members of the Utah State Bar. (Id.) However, nothing in the record suggests 
Ehlert’s current counsel represented him in the Utah action, and Ehlert’s current 
counsel has represented to the Court they are not licensed to practice in Utah. (Ehlert 
Claw Back Brf. 3.) 
Fourth, Galaxy contends Ehlert’s counsel has, violated various “other Georgia 
and Utah rules of professional conduct/ethical rules.” (Galaxy Claw-Back Brf. 3.) 
Because Galaxy has failed to identify any particular provision it accuses Ehlert’s 
counsel of violating, the Court will not address this claim. 
Based on the peculiar facts of this situation, Galaxy’s claw-back effort and its 
corresponding request for sanctions are DENIED. Simply put, the Court finds no 
violation of any clear legal requirement governing the return of the Email or the 
limitation of its use while privilege issues are being addressed. 
To be clear, the Court has limited its review of issues surrounding the Email 
to the claw-back claims that have been presented and briefed. It addresses no other 
questions including whether providing the Email as part of Galaxy’s Initial 
Disclosures in the Utah Action constitutes a waiver of Galaxy’s accountant-client
privilege.’ Once again, based upon the peculiar facts of this situation, the Court 
ORDERS Ehlert to sequester the Email and refrain from disclosing or using the 
Email until Galaxy’s claims regarding its privileged status are resolved as outlined 
below. 
Should Galaxy wish to assert the Email retains its privilege, it should, within 
one week of the entry of this order, present the Court via email with a letter brief 
no longer than three pages long outlining its position. Ehlert shall have one-week 
after Galaxy presents it letter brief to the Court to present its own letter brief in 
response which shall be submitted in the same fashion and subject to the same page 
limit. Should Galaxy fail to timely raise the privilege issue as outlined above, the 
Court’s limitations on Ehlert’s use of the Email shall cease. 
7 In making the Initial Disclosures in the Utah Action, Galaxy and its co-Defendants stated they, 
do not waive, and expressly reserve, the right to object to the admission of the information provided 
in these Disclosures. . . In addition, by disclosing this information, Defendants do not waive and 
expressly reserve their right to object to the disclosure of any information insulated by one or more 
privileges, protections, or immunities from discovery... . 
(Initial Disclosures 2.)
3. R & G DISPUTE 
3.1 Background 
3.1.1 Prior Dispute Concerning Banking Records for Galaxy and 
Galaxy-Related Entities 
The Court previously addressed a dispute regarding Ehlert’s request to obtain 
banking records from certain financial institutions for Galaxy and a number of 
purportedly affiliated entities, including some who were not parties, including R & 
G Sales, Inc. (“R & G”). (Order Re: Disc. Dispute Involving Galaxy Parties and 
Bradley Ehlert.) The Court allowed Ehlert to obtain the records from Galaxy and 
the two related entities that are parties to this case, Ehlert Solutions Group, Inc. and 
Interlock Concepts, Inc. (Id. 4.) The Court only allowed discovery as to one non- 
party Galaxy-related entity, Galaxy Next Generation Ltd. Co., based on Ehlert’s 
assertions that Galaxy used an account titled in the name of this entity to conduct 
business. (Id. 4-5.) The Court specifically denied Ehlert’s request to seek the 
banking information of R & G and other Galaxy-related entities on the grounds the 
requests were “overly broad and unnecessarily intrusive.” (Id. 5.) 
3.1.2 Ehlert’s Request for Reconsideration 
Ehlert and Galaxy began discussions regarding the sales transaction 
underlying this dispute in the spring of 2019. (Compl. § 10; Ans. § 10.) As Ehlert 
admits, R & G ceased operating in 2018 when it merged into Galaxy. (Ehlert R & 
G Brf. 1.) During the course of discovery, Ehlert has learned that subsequent to the 
10
merger, vestiges of R & G remain in Galaxy’s financial records, including the 
continued presence and/or use of R & G’s tax ID number (“EIN”). (Id. 2.) 
Accordingly, Ehlert requests the Court reconsider its prior decision and permit “him 
to serve nonparty discovery requests seeking account information for accounts 
maintained under R & G Sales’ EIN...” (Id. 3.) 
2.2 Analysis 
Ehlert’s supports his request to obtain R & G’s banking information with 
claims that even after the merger: (1) R & G’s EIN appeared in certain contexts 
involving Galaxy, (2) that Galaxy wrote checks and received wires from R & G, and 
(3) Galaxy received and cashed nine U.S. Treasury checks payable to “R & G Sales 
Inc. dba Galaxy Next.”® (Id. 2.) 
In its response brief, Galaxy offers detailed information explaining the history 
of R & G, its relationship to the parents of Galaxy CEO Gary LeCroy, the parents’ 
post-merger use of the R & G account to conduct their own personal and business 
affairs that are separate from Galaxy, the continued appearance of the R & GEIN in 
various Galaxy contexts, the transfers back and forth between R & G and Galaxy, 
etc. (Galaxy R&G Brf. 2-3.) Galaxy makes the specific representation, “there were 
8 Ehlert also points to a 2019 email from a Somerset employee who stated, “R&G Sales merged with Galaxy Next 
Gen, as now they are all one and the same.” (Ehlert R & G Brf. 2, Ex. I.) The Court agrees with Galaxy that this one 
general statement found in the communication, which on its face does not appear to be complete, is insufficient to 
open the door for Ehlert to review R & G’s banking records. 
11
zero customer deposits, bills paid, or any other company related activity handled in 
R & G’s accounts after the merger of R & G into Galaxy. (emphasis in original.)” 
(Id.) 
While the Court will not recount in detail the explanation provided by Galaxy, 
it does find the explanation to be persuasive and DENIES Ehlert’s request for 
reconsideration. Specifically, the Court finds the discovery requested is 
burdensome, intrusive, and unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 
However, pursuant to Galaxy’s offer, it directs Galaxy to provide Ehlert with an 
affidavit verifying the factual assertions it makes in its letter brief. (Id. n. 2.) 
4. CONCLUSION 
In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 
1. Galaxy’s request to “claw back” the September 18, 2019 Email is 
DENIED. 
2. Ehlert’s request for reconsideration of the Court’s decision restricting 
Ehlert’s ability to conduct financial discovery as to R & G Sales, Inc. is 
DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Galaxy shall supply Ehlert with 
a sworn affidavit from an individual based on personal knowledge attesting 
to all of the facts regarding R & G contained within Galaxy’s letter brief 
responding to Ehlert’s reconsideration request. Such affidavit should be 
provided to Ehlert no later than two weeks after the entry of this order. 
12
SO ORDERED this 5 day of January, 2023. 
Mahe 
 
KELLY ELLERBE, JUDGE 
Superior Court of Fulton County 
Atlanta Judicial Circuit 
Filed and Served Upon Registered Contacts via Odyssey eFileGA 
Attorneys for Plaintiff and 
Counterclaim Defendants 
Attorneys for Defendant / 
Counterclaim Plaintiff 
Michael J. Ernst 
J. Griff Lucas, UI 
STOKES CARMICHAEL & ERNST LLP 
2018 Powers Ferry Rd., Suite 700 
Atlanta, GA 30339 
Tel: (404) 352-1465 
mje@scelaw.com 
jgl@scelaw.com 
Attorneys for Galaxy Next Generation, Inc., 
Gary LeCroy, Magen McGahee, Ehlert 
Solutions Group, Ine. and Interlock Concepts, 
Inc. 
D. Michael Williams 
HALL BOOTH SMITH, PC 
191 Peachtree Street, NE 
Suite 2900 
Atlanta, GA 30303-1775 
Tel: (404) 954-5000 
Attorneys for Somerset CPAs, P.C. and Becky 
Quintana 
Catherine G. Lucas 
DUANE MORRIS LLP 
1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2000 
Atlanta, GA 30309-3929 
Tel: (404) 253-6912 
klucas@duanemorris.com     
Jon David W. Huffman 
Scott B. McMahan 
Timothy Andrews 
POOLE HUFFMAN, LLC 
3562 Habersham at Northlake 
Building J, Suite 200 
Tucker, GA 30084 
Tel: (404) 373-4008 
jondavid@poolehuffman.com 
scott(@poolehuffman.com 
timandrews@poolehutfman.com 
Attorneys for Bradley Ehlert 
 
  
  
Attorneys for Wade Walker and TPI Business 
Consultants, LLC 
  
14 
 
4
Attorneys for ade alker d I si e s
nsultants,


Galaxy Next Gen. v. Elhert, Order on Discovery Issues

Ellerbe, Kelly Lee

Alexander S. Glover, et. al. Georgia Mining Ventures, LLC, Order on Objection to Subpoena for Deposition

Alexander S. Glover, et. al. v. Georgia Mining Ventures, LLC, et. al., Order on Motions for Summary Judgment

Georgia State University College of Law 
Reading Room 
Georgia Business Court Opinions 
4-24-2023 
Alexander S. Glover, et. al. v. Georgia Mining Ventures, LLC, et. al., 
Order on Motion to Withdraw Admissions 
Kelly L. Ellerbe 
Judge, Superior Court of Fulton County, Metro Atlanta Business Case Division 
Follow this and additional works at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/businesscourt 
 Part of the Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics Commons, Business Organizations Law 
Commons, and the Contracts Commons 
Institutional Repository Citation 
Kelly L. Ellerbe, Alexander S. Glover, et. al. v. Georgia Mining Ventures, LLC, et. al., Order on Motion to 
Withdraw Admissions, Georgia Business Court Opinions 557 (2023) 
https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/businesscourt/557 
This Court Order is brought to you for free and open access by Reading Room. It has been accepted for inclusion in 
Georgia Business Court Opinions by an authorized administrator of Reading Room. For more information, please 
contact gfowke@gsu.edu. 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY 
STATE OF GEORGIA 
ALEXANDER S. GLOVER, JR., 
individually and in his capacity as 
Successor Co-Trustee of the 
Glover Family Inter Vivos Trust, 
LYNN GLOVER HOLLOWAY, 
individually and in her capacity as 
Successor Co-Trustee of The 
Glover Family Irrevocable Inter 
Vivos Trust, and SAMUEL 
GLOVER, 
Plaintiffs 
Vv. 
GEORGIA MINING VENTURES 
LLC, et al., 
Defendants. 
N
S
 
SS
 
SS
 
SS
 
S
S
 
A
S
 
S
S
 
SS
 
Civil Action 
File No. 2021CV345083 
 
ORDER ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS IN RESPONSES 
TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS BY DEFENDANTS E&M 
INDUSTRIES, LLC, EAGLE RECLAMATION, LLC, NATURAL 
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT LLC AND RAILROAD VALLEY MINING 
COMPANY 
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Withdraw Admissions 
in Responses to Requests for Admissions by Defendants E&M Industries, LLC 
(“E&M”), Eagle Reclamation, LLC (“Eagle Reclamation”), Natural Resource
Fulton County Superior Court
   ***EFILED***QW
Date: 4/24/2023 10:55 AM
Cathelene Robinson, Clerk
Management LLC (“NRM”), and Railroad Valley Mining Company (“RVMC”) 
(collectively “Movants”), filed November 28, 2022 (“Motion”). Having reviewed 
the record including Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to 
Withdraw Admissions, filed December 27, 2022 (“Response”), and the Reply to 
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Various Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw Admissions in 
Responses to Requests for Admissions, filed January 27, 2023 (“Reply”), the Court 
enters the following order. 
1. BACKGROUND 
1.1 Underlying Allegations of the Dispute 
On September 28, 2018, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit alleging a failure of 
Defendant Georgia Mining Ventures, LLC to pay promissory notes issued in relation 
to a failed land deal involving Defendants Ronald Reeser, Mason Drake, and Patrick 
Maher and inducing Plaintiffs to accept these notes. (See generally Complaint.) 
As discovery in this action continued, Plaintiffs determined the original 
Defendants raised millions of dollars that could have been used to pay the 
promissory notes but were diverted to unrelated deals or forwarded to multiple 
entities in what Plaintiffs contend were fraudulent transfers. (See generally Am. 
Compl. 9-15, 126-138, 264-273.) Accordingly, on July 14, 2021, Plaintiffs filed 
an Amended Complaint adding multiple entity defendants they believed had
participated in these purportedly inappropriate transfers, including the four Movants. 
(See generally id. {J 59, 126-129, 137, 264-273.) 
1.2 Applicable Discovery Directives in the Governing Case 
Management Order 
On June 17, 2022, the Court entered the Second Amended Case Management 
Order which established various discovery provisions that govern here. 
In relation to discovery disputes, it provides, “[s]hould a party wish to file a 
formal motion seeking resolution of a discovery dispute, any such motion shall be 
filed within 90 days from the date of the response or event (e.g. deposition) that is 
the subject of the motion, and in no event later than the close of discovery absent 
Court Order.” (2"! Am. CMO § 8.A.) 
This case management order also establishes a cascading set of discovery 
deadlines with written discovery ending on August 15, 2022, lay witness deposition 
discovery ending on September 15, 2022, and all discovery ending on October 28, 
2022. (Id. § 8.E.) It also established a November 29, 2022 deadline for all 
dispositive and Daubert motions. (Id. § 9.E.) 
1.3. Requests for Admissions Served upon Movants 
On April 27, 2022, Plaintiffs served Requests for Admissions upon the 
Movants. (Mot. § 1; Resp. § 2.) There appears to be no dispute that Movants 
responded to their respective requests in a timely way. In an undated August 2022
letter, Movants’ counsel wrote Plaintiffs’ counsel pursuant to Rule 6.4 seeking 
permission to amend his clients’ admissions (“August 2022 letter”). He asserted, 
[s]everal responses to Requests for Admission are inconsistent with 
others or just plain incorrect. Some issues arise from the ambiguity of 
the statement for which admission or denial is requested. Others 
resulted purely from my mistake - either in not correctly reading the 
question or comments made by the clients. 
(Resp. Ex. 1.) Movants contend this letter was transmitted on August 8, 2022. (Mot. 
415; Resp. Ex. 6 (J. Killough Sept. 5, 2022 email).) Specifically, it listed 17 requests 
to admit that Movants and other Defendants represented by Movants’ counsel 
desired to amend. 
Movants claim they received no response from Plaintiffs. (Mot. n. 1.) 
However, the record reflects a response was made in a September 2, 2022 letter 
when Plaintiffs’ counsel explained the August 2022 letter request could not be 
properly evaluated because the discovery requests identified in the letter did not 
match the corrected responses enclosed. (Resp. Ex. 5 1.) Plaintiffs asked Movants’ 
counsel to “send copies of all RFA responses you are seeking to amend.” (Id.) 
Between September 29, 2022 and October 3, 2022, Movants served 
supplemented responses to Plaintiffs’ various requests to admit. (Resp. 6-7, Ex. 7- 
15.) According to Plaintiffs, these responses indicate Movants and other Defendants 
represented by Movants’ counsel were attempting to amend a number of admissions
that had not been identified in the August 2022 letter. (Resp. 7; compare Resp. Ex. 
1 with Ex. 7-15.) 
On November 28, 2022, Movants filed the instant Motion, seeking to 
withdraw and/or amend 30 admissions, only nine of which were identified in the 
August 2022 letter.' Movants seek to supplement certain prior responses with 
additional information and seek to altogether change other responses from an 
admission to a denial. (Mot. 3-8.) This Motion was filed one month after the close 
of discovery and one day prior to the deadline for filing dispositive and Daubert 
motions. 
2. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
A trial court has broad discretion to control all discovery matters. Day v. 
Mason, 357 Ga. App. 836, 842 (2020). This broad discretion extends to a trial 
court’s decision to permit the withdrawal of admissions made under O.C.G.A. § 9- 
11-36. JCG Farms of Alabama, LLC v. Morgan, 348 Ga. App. 629, 631 (2019). 
* Those requests to admit identified in Movants’ August 2022 letter that are addressed in the Motion include: 
e E&M Response to RFA No. 8 (Mot. 3; Resp. Ex. 1 2.) 
° NRM Response to RFA No. 62 (Id. 4-6; Resp. Ex. 1 2.) 
e RVMC Response to RFA Nos. 23-25, 69-72 (Id. 6-8; Ex. 1 1-2.) 
The one response to a request to admit that Eagle Reclamation seeks to withdraw or amend in the Motion is not 
found in the August 2022 letter. (Id. 4; Resp. Ex. 1 3.)
3. ANALYSIS 
3.1 The Motion is Untimely 
As § 8.A. of the Second Amended Case Management Order established 
discovery motions were due no later than October 28, 2022, the end of discovery, 
the present Motion is untimely. Indeed, the Motion came the day before the 
dispositive motion filing deadline. Permitting such a late filed motion would thwart 
the very purpose of the discovery dispute deadline, creating uncertainty and disarray 
in the record after discovery has ended and when the parties are looking to the record 
to prepare for the pivotal motions phase of the case.” 
3.2 Movants Fail to Carry their Burden under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-36(b) 
Alternatively, even if the Court were to reach the merits of this dispute, the 
Court finds the Motion should be denied. “Any matter admitted under [O.C.G.A. § 
9-11-36] is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits withdrawal 
or amendment of the admission.” O.C.G.A. § 9-11-36(b). The withdrawal or 
amendment of such an admission may be permitted, “when the presentation of the 
merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the party who obtained the 
? USCR 6.4(B) provides: “[p]rior to filing a motion seeking resolution of a discovery dispute, counsel for the moving 
party shall confer with counsel for the opposing party... . in a good faith effort to resolve the matters involved.” In 
their Reply, Movants suggest the Rule 6.4 may not be applicable to the present Motion. (Reply 4.) However, it was 
Movants who invoked Rule 6.4 in their August 2022 letter. (Resp. Ex. 1.) Here, to the extent Rule 6.4 is applicable, 
the Court finds Movants’ Rule 6.4 conferral efforts were insufficient for the majority of the 30 requests addressed in 
their Motion as only a small number of those requests were included in their Rule 6.4 notice. See Strong v. Wachovia 
Bank of Georgia, N.A., 215 Ga. App. 572, 572 (1994)(trial court acted within its discretion in denying discovery 
motion based on movant’s failure to fully comply with USCR 6.4.)
admission fails to satisfy the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice him 
in maintaining his action or defense on the merits.” Id. If a movant establishes the 
former requirement, the burden is on the responding party to establish the latter. 
JCG Farms of Alabama at 631. Both requirements are essential for the withdrawal 
or amendment to be granted. Id. 
As to the first requirement, it “is not perfunctorily satisfied.” Turner v. Mize, 
280 Ga. App. 256, 257 (2006). Rather, “[i]f the burden of proof on the subject matter 
of the request for admission is on the requestor, the movant is required to show the 
admitted request either can be refuted by admissible evidence having a modicum of 
credibility or is incredible on its face, and the denial is not offered solely for purposes 
of delay.” Id. In their 12-page Motion, the four Movants offer a cursory explanation 
as to why they seek to withdraw or amend 30 different requests to admit. (Mot. 3- 
8.) As for evidence supporting their request, Movants merely argue they each 
separately provided an acceptable explanation in verified supplemental discovery 
responses which Movants did not identify with record citations or analyze with any 
detail. (Id. 11.) Essentially, Movants shift what is their burden and attempt to force 
Plaintiffs to locate the evidence to which Movants have vaguely alluded, assess its 
admissibility and credibility, and then apply it to the 30 different admissions 
Movants seek to amend or withdraw. This is precisely the type of “perfunctory”
effort to satisfy the first requirement of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-36(b) that is not permitted. 
JCG Farms of Alabama at 631, Turner at 257. 
Further, based on the totality of the circumstances, including the timing of this 
Motion and its vagueness, the Court is not persuaded that the purpose of this Motion 
was something other than delay. 
4. CONCLUSION 
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the Motion to Withdraw 
Admissions in Responses to Requests for Admissions by Defendants E&M 
Industries, LLC, Eagle Reclamation, LLC, Natural Resource Management LLC, and 
Railroad Valley Mining Company. tr 
IT IS SO ORDERED eric Dey of April, 2023. 
    
E ELLERBE, Judge 
Superior Court of Fulton County 
Metro Atlanta Business Case Division 
Alexander Glover, Jr. individually and in his capacity as Successor Co-Trustee of the Glover Family Inter Vivos 
Trust et al. v, Georgia Mining Ventures, LLC et al. 
Superior Court of Fulton County, Civil Action File No. 2021CV345083 
Order on Motion to Withdraw Admissions in Responses to Requests for Admissions by Defendants E&M Industries, 
LLC, Eagle Reclamation, LLC, Natural Resource Management LLC, and Railroad Valley Mining Company 
Filed and Served via Odyssey eFileGA 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendants 
  Atlanta, GA_30309   
Jeffrey D. Horst William C. Collins, Jr. 
Sada J. Baby B. Levy 
KREVOLIN & HORST, LLC BURR & FORMAN LLP 
One Atlantic Center, Suite 3250 171 Seventeenth Street, NW 
1201 West Peachtree, St., N.W. Suite 1100 
Atlanta, GA 30363  
  
  
Tel: (404) 888-9700 
horst@klawfirm.com 
baby@khlawfirm.com 
  
Tel: (404) 685-4266 
weollins@burr.com 
blevy@burr.com 
Attorneys for Defendant Ronald Reeser 
James G. Killough 
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES G. KILLOUGH 
Syner.G Law Complex 
6075 Barfield Road 
Atlanta, GA 30328 
(404) 467-8700 
jim@killoughlaw.com 
Attorneys for Defendants Georgia Mining 
Ventures, LLC, Mason Drake, Patrick Maher, 
Natural Resource Management, LLC, Venture 
Gold, Inc., Venture Resources, Inc, E&M 
Industries LLC, Stone Kingdom LLC, PDM Gold, 
LLC, Sweetwater, Inc., Eagle Reclamation, LLC 
and Railroad Valley Mining Company, LLC 
Robert Williamson 
J. Hayden Kepner, Jr. 
SCROGGINS & WILLIAMSON, P.C. 
4401 Northside Parkway 
Suite 450 
Atlanta, GA 30327 
T: (404) 893-3880 
F: (404) 893-3886 
E: rwilliamson@swlawfirm.com 
hkepner@swlawfirm.com 
Attorneys for Defendants Bald Eagle Partners, 
LLC and The Eagle Group, LLC 
Amber C. Saunders 
Imani A. Redd 
6 Concourse Parkway, Suite 2140 
Atlanta, GA 30328 
Tel: (678) 680-4366 
amber@thesaunderfirm.com 
imani@thesaundersfirm.com 
Attorneys for Defendant RVMC Partners, LLC  


Alexander S. Glover, et. al. v. Georgia Mining Ventures, LLC, et. al., Order on Motion to Withdraw Admissions

Tailor, Wesley B.

Alder Opportunitiy LP, et. al. v. CGC Capital Partners, LLC, et. al., Order on Pending Motions

Goger, John J.

Company.Com, LLC v. Priority Payment Systems, LLC, Order on Motion for Interlocutory Injunction and Motion to Dismiss

Rosenbaum, Sara

The Public Health Administrative State Under Fire:  Restoring Trust in the CDC and FDA (Catherine C. Henson Keynote Address)

Georgia State University

Not a member yet