Judge takes under advisement sanctions and summary-judgment motions in Clayton County hit-and-run case

A Clayton County State Court judge on May 7, 2025, heard competing motions in Marquise Duron Ferguson v. Richard L. Jones et al, a personal-injury suit arising from a reported Oct. 27, 2023 hit-and-run. Judge Tammy Long Hayward presided over oral argument on the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and motion for summary judgment and a separate motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Richard Jones; the court said it would review briefing and issue orders.

The motions matter because the plaintiff asks the court to strike Richard Jones’s answer and deposition testimony, alleging his sworn testimony conflicts with cellular records the plaintiff obtained from Verizon Wireless. If the court grants sanctions or summary judgment, liability could be resolved before trial.

Plaintiff’s counsel, Christopher Ferguson, told the court that the crash occurred about 9:34 p.m. Oct. 27, 2023, in Henry County and that Henry County 911 and police reports identify a silver Nissan Altima as the at-fault vehicle. Ferguson said plaintiff took depositions of Richard and Matthew Jones in December 2024 and then sought nonparty phone records from Verizon to corroborate testimony. According to the plaintiff’s presentation, Verizon produced records for Oct. 27, 2023, between 9:00 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. that show several billable connected calls to and from Richard Jones’s line at approximately 9:15 p.m., 9:20 p.m. and 9:32 p.m., which the plaintiff says contradicts Jones’s deposition testimony that he “was in a dead sleep when Matthew called.”

Plaintiff argued those discrepancies justify sanctions under OCGA § 9-11-37(d) and asked the court to strike Jones’s answer and deposition testimony and to grant summary judgment as to liability for negligence, negligence per se, punitive damages and fees. Defense counsel John Welsh disputed that the call-history entries prove deception, saying the timing and geographic billing labels do not establish that Jones was driving the car at the crash time and characterizing the evidence as creating genuine issues of material fact.

Counsel also explained that defendant Matthew Jones asserted his Fifth Amendment right and declined to testify; defense counsel said they would submit a supplemental opposition because new counsel had recently appeared. The parties debated the scope and meaning of the Verizon records (billing/geographic labels versus precise location data) and whether the records reflect answered calls or voicemail, with both sides citing different explanatory notes in the records.

Judge Hayward heard oral argument from both sides, asked clarifying questions about the timeline and the discovery history (depositions taken December 2024; timing of nonparty subpoenas and records), and said she would review the record and issue consolidated written orders addressing the motion for sanctions, both summary-judgment motions and related discovery disputes. She directed counsel that proposed orders could be submitted to the court.

The court did not rule at the hearing. No formal findings or rulings were announced; the judge said she would issue orders after review of the filings.