Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Procedure Discovery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge asks parties to submit order allowing discovery on damages in Scarborough v. Gas Express Petroleum
Summary
In a brief hearing in Clayton County State Court, the presiding judge instructed the parties to submit a proposed order authorizing discovery on damages and setting the damages hearing; a prior motion to open default was noted as denied.
The presiding judge in Clayton County State Court instructed parties in Scarborough v. Gas Express Petroleum to submit a proposed order allowing discovery on damages and related proceedings, after counsel said a prior motion to open default had been denied.
The matter arose in a short proceeding where an attorney in the case told the court, “We have filed a motion to open default. That was denied. I don't remember the date, but not terribly long ago. March 12.” The attorney said the party has served discovery “on the plaintiff now” and that the party seeks discovery solely “as to damages and have a jury trial on damages.”
Miss Powell, court staff, confirmed the text of the prior order: “Yes, judge. I can send it to you. The first part of the order was denying the, opening of the default, and then the second part of the order was calling the parties in for this, hearing for damages.” The presiding judge then said, “Okay. Submit the order.” The judge later added, “Alright. We'll sign it.”
No representative for the plaintiff appeared on the record. The attorney said the motion to open default had been denied earlier; the attorney estimated that occurred “March 12” but did not provide a docket citation. Court staff and counsel agreed that a proposed order would be submitted to the judge, who indicated they would sign it electronically when received.
The hearing record contains no formal ruling entered on the transcript excerpt beyond the presiding judge's directive that counsel submit a proposed order. The transcript does not specify deadlines for submission, a date for a damages hearing, or any jury trial scheduling details; those appear to be left to the proposed order. The transcript also does not identify the attorney by name.
Because the discussion was limited to procedural matters—status of the earlier motion, discovery on damages and the judge's instruction to submit an order—no substantive findings on liability or damages were made on the record during the excerpt provided.
