Motion for Sanctions GRANTED against GEORGIA GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMMISSION , et al.,

8/11/2019 Motion for Sanctions GRANTED against GEORGIA GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMMIS

1/9

FILED N OFFICE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF

FULTON C

ST TE OF GEORGI

STACE

Y

KA

LBERMAN ,

Y

SEP

0 3 2 4

Pl a i n t i f f ,

DEPUTY CL

ER

I< SUPERIOR COURT

vs

.

GEORGIA GOVERNMENT TRAN

SPARENCY

AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE

COMMISSION

,

e t

a l . ,

Defendants .

FU l_ N COUNTY, GA

Civ i l

Action

No .

2012CV216247

Ho

norable Ural

D

Glan v i

l l e

Motion

for

San

ct ions

0

R

R

The above - capt ioned matter i s present ly

before

the

Court

on

P la in t i f f ' s Motion for Sa

nct io n s

Under

O. C. G. A.

9

-1

5- 14(b) , 9-

11- 37

15

- 1 - 3

1

(Doc.

no

. 130).

Defendan

t

Georg

i a

Gover

nment

Transp arency and Campaig n Finance Comm i ss ion

( Commiss

i on ) ,

Defendant LaBerge, and the Georgia Department o f Law

( Departmen t ) oppose the i nstant motion . (Doc. nos. 1 32 - 134) .

On

August 25,

2014,

the

Court

he

l d a

hear ing

concern

i

ng

the

i ns tan t m

o t ion ,

inc luding

argument

by

Cou

nse l , as wel l as

tes t imony by Defendant LaBerge and Bryan K. Webb , Off ice of th e

Attorney General

for

the Sta te of Georgia .

For

the reasons

s ta ted

, infr the

ins tan t

motion i s GR NTED (Doc .

no

.

130)

.

I . B CKGROUND

ronic l ly

the above

-

capt ioned

case i n

volves

Pl a i n t i f f s

c la

i m u

nder

O. C.G . A.

45 - 1- 4 ,

Georgia

s W

h i s t

l e b l owe r Sta tu

te

.

(Doc . nos . 2 , 1

1, 59

, Comp

l.

Am

. Compl.

, Second Am. Compl.) .

Following

the t r a n s fe r of t he

above

-

cap t io

ned case to t h i s

1


2/9

Di vis ion, the Court

ente red a

Case Management Order,

conta ining

deadl ines

,

po l i c i e s , and procedures governing the above-captioned

case .

(Doc.

no.

42

Notably

,

the

Case Management

Order

provides , [T] he Court

reminds

the pa r t i e s

t ha t ,

under

the Civi

l

Pract ice Act, they have

a

duty

to fu l ly

cooperate in discovery

a nd

tha t

the f a i l u re to

fu l f i l l t h i s obl iga t ion

may

r e su l t in

sanct ions . (

Id .

a t

1) .

After

a

t r i a l

l a s t i ng

severa l days

,

the

impaneled jury

found

for Pla in t i f f in the

amount

of $700, 000.

00.

1

(Doc. no . 12 6) .

Subsequent ly , the Court

entered a

Consent Order

Acknowledging

Set t lement ,

wherein

the

par t i e s

consented

and

agreed

tha t Defendants owe Pla in t i f f

$1,150 ,

000

.

00, in compromise and

se t t lement of the non

-

wage compensatory damages and l i t i g a t ion

expenses. (Doc. no

.

127).

Pla in t i f f

contends

tha t , through var ious media reports and

Defendant

LaBerge

s t e lev i s ion

in te rv iews ,

it has recen t ly come

to

l igh t tha t

members

of

Governor

Deal

s Office threatened

,

in

te lephone conversa t ions and

t ex t messages , Defendant

LaBerge in

connect ion with the invest iga t ion

forming

the bas i s o f the above

-

1

As chronic led in the Cour t ' s February 7, 2014

Order

denying Defendants '

Motion

for

Summary

Judgment,

P l a i n t i f f

was

previously

employed by Defendant Commission

as Execut ive

Secretary . (Doc. no.

98, p . 1) . Between March

and

May 2010,

Pla in t i f f

became

aware

o f

th i rd -pa r ty

complaints

aga ins t gubernator ia l

candidate

Nathan Deal concerning campaign f inance compliance with the Georgia Campaign

Finance Act,

u l t ima te ly

resu l t ing in the dra f t ing o f cer ta in

subp

oenas

. (Id . a t

2) . After Pla in t i f f

presen ted

the subpoenas to the Commission, P l a i n t i f f ' s

t enure as

Executive Secretary ended . (Id . a t 1- 2) .

Al

though

the

par t i es

disputed

the bas i s

and

nature of the te rminat ion , the

verdic t represents

the

Jury

' s

unques t ionable f inding

tha t ,

in

v io la t ion

o f O.C.G.A. 45

-1 -

4 , Pla in t i f f

was r e t a l i a t ed

aga ins t

based upon

the

d i sc losu re o f a

v io la t ion of,

o r no n

comp l i ance

with,

Georgia ' s Campaign Finance Act.

2


3/9

capt ioned

complaint . (Doc. no.

130 , p. 2) .

Pl a i n t i f f

asser t s

tha t Defendant LaBerge

e - mailed, in

an ef fo r t to preserve

,

these

communications to

a

personal account and t ha t Defendant

LaBerge

memorial ized,

a t

the di rec t ion of

Commission

Chairman Kevin

Abernethy, the telephone conversat ions and t ex t messages

in a

Memorandum of Record ( Memorandum ) . (Id.

a t

2-3) .

Pla in t i f f

maintains tha t , despi te severa l discovery

requests ,

Defendants '

responses to Pl a i n t i f f s discovery requests

did

not include the

subjec t Memorandum, e-mai ls , or t ex t

messages.

(Id.

a t 3-4)

.

Pla in t i f f

expla ins

t ha t a t

a

Ju ly

31,

2013

deposi t ion,

Defendant

LaBerge

again f a i l ed to

reveal

the exis tence of

the

communications

and

Memorandum, i nd ica t ing t ha t

a l l re levant

documents had

been

produced

. ( Id. a t

6 . Pl a i n t i f f requests t ha t

t he

Court

impose

sanct ions based

upon

bad fa i th discovery abuses. (Id.

a t

11-24).

In per t inen t par t , the

Department

counters

tha t , during the

course of discovery,

Counsel

Webb

produced

a l l e-mai ls and other

documents produced

by

Commission employees. (Doc.

no.

13 2, pp. 3-

4 . The Department

expla ins

tha t , fol lowing

a c

e r t a i n

deposi t ion,

Counsel

Webb

ques t ioned

Defendant LaBerge concerning a l l ega t ions

of pressure from

the Off ice

of

the

Governor,

re su l t ing

in

disc losure

and

product ion

of

the

Memorandum . (Id.

a t

4 ) .

The

Department mainta ins tha t ,

because the

Memorandum was

not

responsive to

P l a i n t i f f s discovery

requests , t

was

not disc losed

or produced

in

discovery .

(Id.

a t 5) .

The

Department a l so

3


4/9


5/9

sought -af ter r e l i e f ; (3)

the

se t t lement agreement bars the

sought

-

a f t e r

r e l i e f ; ( 4) the

disc losed

informat ion i s not re levant to

Pla in t i f f s

claims;

(

5)

the disc losed

information

was known to

Pla in t i f f ; and (6)

Pla in t i f f

has not es tab l i shed

prejudice

or

harm. (Doc.

no . 135).

I I .

DIS USSION

OF

L W

As an

i n i t i

a l matter , a br i e f discuss ion

concerning

the

bas ic

nature of

discovery would

be

par t i cu l a r l y

appropr ia te in

l igh t

of

the ins tan t dispute . Under the Civi l Pract ice

Act ,

Par t i e s

may

obta in

discovery regarding

any

mat te r ,

not

priv i leged , which i s re levant

to

the subjec t matter

involved in the pending act ion , whether it r e l a t e s

to

the

claim or defense

including

the exis tence ,

descr ip t ion , nature , custody, condi t ion , and loca t ion of

any books ,

documents,

or

other

t angib le th ings and the

i den t i t y and l oca t ion

of

persons having knowledge of any

discoverable matter .

O.C.G.A.

9- 11-26(b) (1).

Informat ion

i s re levant i it

appears

reasonably

ca lcu la t ed

to

lead

to

the

discovery

o f

admiss ible

evidence.

I

d.

Of course, discovery i s

not

unlimited, and

the

broad scope of discovery i s tempered by

O.C.G

. A. 9- 11 - 26(c) ,

which s t a t e s t ha t , for good cause shown,

cour ts

may,

i n t e r

al ia

protect a party from annoyance , embarrassment , oppress ion ,

or

undue

burden.

O.C.G.A.

9-

ll

- 26(c) . Si mply put ,

[ t

]he

goal of

discovery i s the f a i r reso lu t ion of legal d isputes ,

to

remove the

potent ia l for secrecy and

hiding

of mate r ia l . In t ' l Harvester

Co . v .

Cunningham

, 245 Ga. App . 736, 738

(2000)

(quotat ions

5


6/9

omitted) ;

see a l so

O. C.G.A. 24

-1-1 ( The object of a l l l egal

invest iga t ion i s the

discovery

of

t ru th . ) .

Without quest ion, the

subject

Memorandum, e - mai ls , and t e x t

messages were re levant to the

claims

and

i s sues

ra i sed

in

t he

above-capt ioned complaint . Indeed ,

disc losure

of the Memorandum,

e -

mails ,

and

t ex t

messages would have l i ke l y l ed

to the discovery

of

admissible

evidence

a t t r i a l .

Nevertheless ,

despi te the

di rec t ives

conta ined in the Case

Management Order and

the

Civi l

Pract ice Act, the Department and

Defendant

LaBerge fa i l ed to

cooperate

in

discovery.

Spec i f i ca l ly ,

the

Court

f inds

t ha t

,

al though responsive to Pla in t i f f s discovery

reques ts ,

Defendant

LaBerge and

the Department

o f Law

f a i l ed to

produce

the

Memorandum , e - mails , and t ex t

messages.

Assuming ,

rguendo

Defendant LaBerge and

the

Department bel ieved t ha t these document s

were non - responsive,

based

upon the

nature

of these documents , the

more prudent course o f

act ion would

have been to d isc lose t he i r

existence

and

seek

guidance

from the

Court

. However, ra the r than

err ing

on

the

s ide

of tr nsp rency and a

f a i r

reso lu t ion of the

l egal i ssues ra i sed in t h i s

matter , the

Department chose no n-

disc losure

and Defendant LaBerge chose , purpor ted ly for

her

own

personal

reasons

,

secrecy

and

document-hiding.

2

Final ly

,

al though

As succ inc t ly s t a t ed

by

a

former

Director of the Federal Bureau of

Invest igat ion ,

Above a l l , I would teach

him

to t e l l the

t ru th .

have found,

i s

the key to

respons ible

c i t i zensh ip

.

6

Truth - t e l l ing , I


7/9

the Court i s somewhat sympathet ic with the e t h i ca l posi t ion faced

by

the

Department

, the Court

i s

extremely troubled by the behavior

o f

Defendant

LaBerge who

has been

i shonest and non-transparent

throughout these

proceedings .

Confronted with

the

conduct

of Defendant LaBerge and the

Department

of

Law, the Court i s

l e f t

with the

unenviable

task of

determining what

act ion,

i f any, should

be taken to address

the

fa i lu re

to

comply

with the Civ i l Pract ice Act and Case Management

Order. In

t h i s

regard, O.C.G . A. 15- 1- 3 provides , Every cour t

has

power

.

[ t ]o

cont ro l

,

in

the fur therance

o f

jus t i ce ,

t

he

conduct

of

i t s of f

ce

rs and l l other

persons

connected with a

judic i l proceeding before in every mat te r apper ta in ing

t he re to

, ,3

O.C.G . A. 15 - 1- 3 (4)

(emphasis

added).

As the

Supreme Court of Georgia has repea tedly

explained,

a t r i a l cour t

has the

inherent au thor i ty

to

contro l

the

conduct of

everyone

connected with

a jud ic ia l

proceeding before

the

t r i a l

cour t .

4

Pennington

v .

Pennington

, 291 . 165,

165 (2012); Bayless

v .

Bayless,

280

. 153, 155

(2006)

. To t ha t end, the

Georgia

Court

of Appeal s has succin c t l y explained tha t , p r ior to sanc t ioning

under O.C.G.A.

15 - 1- 3 , the

Court

must a f fo rd

no t ice and an

J .

Edgar

Hoover,

What I Would

ell

a Son

Family

Weekly,

Ju ly

14,

1963.

3

Similar ly , O.C.G.A.

15-6-9 s ta tes , The judges o f the s uper io r cour t s

have

author i ty . [ t ] o perform any and a l l o ther ac ts requ i r ed o f them a t

chambers . . . and

to

exercise a l l other

powers

necessa r i ly apper t a in i ng

to

t he i r

jur i sd ic t ion

o r

which may be

gran ted

them by

law.

O.C . G.A.

15-6-9.

Indeed, t r i a l cour ts have

business o f the cour t . .

d is c r e t ion in regu l

a t ing and contro

l

l ing th

e

Scocca

v.

Wilt ,

243 Ga.

2, 2 1979).

7


8/9

opportuni ty to

be heard

.

App. 649, 659 2007) .

Whitley v.

Piedmont Hosp. , Inc

. ,

284

Ga.

Notwiths tanding

the

arguments

asse r t ed in opposi t ion

to

the

i n s t an t motion

,

t he f a i l u r e t o comply

with

the bas ic

discovery

pr inc ip les

con ta ined in t he Civ i l Prac t

i

ce

Act

and

the

mandate

conta ined

in

the Case Management

Order

not only amounts to

a

f lagrant d is regard for

t he

bas ic ru les governing l i t i g a t i o n and

the

f a i r

reso lu t ion of

l ega l

disputes

in the Sta te o f

Georgia , but

a l so an

i n j us t i ce

and

an

undermining

o f

t he conf idence

imposed by

the

c i t i zens

of the

Sta te

o f

Georgia

in

t he

l ega l

system

.

Indeed

,

t h i s i s

prec i se ly the

type

o f conduct

contemplated by

the

above

-

c i ed au thor i ty as t

r e l a t e s

to

the

Court

s

inheren t au thor i ty

to contro l t he conduct o f indiv iduals connected with

a

j ud i c i a l

proceeding .

Furthermore, because

the

impaneled

ju ry

has rendered

a

verd ic t in t he above-capt ioned case and t he

conduct

involves

a

non-par ty , t he Court

f inds

tha t the imposi t ion of o ther sanc t ions

such

as

the

s t r i k ing

o f pleadings

i n feas ib

l e . Simply

put

the

Court

i s

l e f t

with only one recourse t he impos i t ion o f monetary

sanc t ions .

I I I CONCLUSION

For

the

reasons

s t a t ed

supra

the

i n s t a n t

motion i s

GRANTED

Doc. no . 13

0)

. Al though the Court i s

aware

t ha t

the

i

mposi t ion

of

monetary

sanc t ions

causes more

f inanc ia l pain to

the

c i t i zens

of

Georgia ,

who

are forced to bear

the

continued burden resu l t ing

8


9/9

from the events

giving

r i s e to the above

-

capt ioned case , the

Court

has

no

other

recourse

when faced with

the

conduct

of

th

e

Department, and most appal

l

ingly

Defendant LaBerge,

who

has

repea tedly

proven

herse l f to be dishones t and non

-

t ransparent .

Accordingly

Defendant LaBerge, in her individua

l

and persona l

capac i ty

and the Department are HERE Y ORDERED

to

pay P l a i n t i f f

the t o t a l amount of 20 000.00, represent ing the reasonable

l i t i ga t ion

expenses

assoc ia ted with the

ins tan t

motion

.

In t h i s

regard, Defendant LaBerge, in her ind iv idua l

and

persona

l

capac i ty ,

and

the

Department

are

ORDERED

to

each

pay

10,000.00.

Fai lure to comply with the terms of t h i s Order by September 22,

2014

may

r e su l t in an order of

conte

mpt.

SO ORDERED t h i s

> r ~

day

of 8J]Jr 2014 a t Atlanta

Oral D.

Glan

i l l e

Judg

e

Georgia .

Copies to :

BRYAN

K. WEBB

40 Capi t a l

Square,

SW

At l an t a Georgia 30334

GEORGE

M

WEAVER

2921

Piedmont

Road, NE

Sui t e

C

Atlanta

Georgia

30305

EDWARD H. LINDSEY

3340 Peach t ree

Road, NE

Sui t e

2100

At lan ta Georgia 30326

Fulton

County

Superior

Court

Atlanta Judic ia l Circu i t

KIMBERLY

A.

WORTH

Five Concourse

Pkwy, NE

Sui t e

2600

At lan ta

Georgia 303028

ALISA

PITTMAN CLEEK

220

Peach t ree

S t r ee t

NE

Sui te 800

At lan ta

Georgia

30303

Motion for Sanctions GRANTED against GEORGIA GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMMISSION , et al.,

Documents