Litigation Fundamentals | Untangling New Rule Adjustments Litigators Need to Know

This episode of Litigation Fundamentals is led by Henry M. Quillian III and includes Taylor English paralegal Winifred Farria focuses on three separate but important topics that impact litigation. Subject matter includes: 1) response timing to an adverse motion in state, superior and federal courts, 2) how to enforce a subpoena issued under the Georgia Arbitration Act, and 3) developments around attorney’s fee recovery. Using the example of an electronically filed motion for summary judgment, Winifred and Henry walk through the parameters of response timing (being 33 days per Rule 6.2 of uniform superior court rules). Winnie walks through some instances where conflicts can arise and O.C.G.A. § 9-11-6€e) allows for three additional days. Winnie shares that state courts are to apply uniform superior court rules in their courts, with a reminder to always read the rules and statutes regarding response expectations, as statutes can take precedence over the Uniform Rules. And when it comes to electronic service in federal court, the three day extension does not apply so individuals should take note and plan accordingly.

Next up, Henry walks through how to enforce a subpoena against non-parties issued under the Georgia Arbitration Act and the steps involved in that process. As the legislature and the courts favor arbitration as a means of resolving disputes, Henry walks through questions to pose in these situations: including what court, what kind of application, who is party to the application and how to get an order issued. He outlines how to work through these inquiries for documents or testimony, including steps to take and relevant procedures and opinions.

Henry lastly addresses the topic of attorney’s fee recovery and references the Supreme Court of Georgia case of Junior vs. Graham, which essentially allows for parties to secure up to twice the fees charged from the other side in a Georgia litigation case (pointing to § 9-11-68 as a motivating factor to engage settlement discussions and avoid unnecessary litigation). He addresses the role of bad faith and stubborn litigiousness in instances where there were bad acts that caused the litigation, discussing different scenarios tied to fee recovery. In terms of attorney’s fee recovery in arbitration, Henry shares that as a rule § 13-6-11 does not work in arbitration under most procedural rules. In a case where both litigation and arbitration occurred (Palazzo Rosa LLC vs. Charles Dean) around construction matters, a settlement was presented that led to arbitrate the outcome. Through examples, Henry illustrates these instances in real life scenarios.