Connect with us

Georgia

Why GM’s Mary Barra got no special deposition treatment from Georgia Supreme Court

Published

on

Why GM’s Mary Barra got no special deposition treatment from Georgia Supreme Court


Mary Barra, Chair and CEO of Common Motors Firm speaks on the 2022 Milken Institute World Convention in Beverly Hills, California, U.S., Might 2, 2022. REUTERS/Mike Blake

Register now for FREE limitless entry to Reuters.com

Advertisement

(Reuters) – Company CEOs and CFOs are busy individuals with a variety of duties. So are myriad different employees whose colleagues depend upon their efforts. And so are single mother and father juggling jobs exterior of the house.

All of them – certainly, all witnesses referred to as for a deposition in a civil go well with in state court docket in Georgia – are entitled to ask for an order shielding them from testifying as a result of the deposition could be an “undue burden or expense.” In each civil case in state court docket, Georgia trial judges have discretion to weigh the potential worth of the requested discovery in opposition to the disruption it will trigger to the witness.

What Georgia judges can’t do, below a ruling on Wednesday from the Georgia Supreme Court docket, is apply a particular take a look at for company executives who do not need to be deposed.

Register now for FREE limitless entry to Reuters.com

The unanimous Supreme Court docket rejected a name from Common Motors LLC and a bunch of amici – together with Georgia-based corporations United Parcel Service Inc, Delta Air Strains Inc and The Coca-Cola Firm – to undertake the so-called apex doctrine to guard high-ranking executives from abusive and harassing discovery calls for.

Advertisement

Beneath the apex framework, which is extensively utilized in federal court docket, judges think about 4 elements in assessing calls for for depositions from top-level executives: the company official’s rank and duties; her private information of details related to the litigation; the extent to which these details could be obtained in discovery; and the potential of acquiring the data from a unique supply.

GM’s legal professionals at Alston & Fowl advised the Georgia Supreme Court docket that the “sensible and versatile” apex framework doesn’t truly bestow particular privileges on company executives however merely assures that they obtain the identical safety as different potential deposition witnesses, in gentle of their “distinctive susceptibility” to baseless discovery calls for.

That’s not how the Georgia Supreme Court docket noticed it. “Adopting the apex doctrine,” wrote Justice Charlie Bethel, “would essentially prohibit the trial court docket’s discretion by putting a thumb on the dimensions in order to counsel a particular rule for high-ranking executives of huge corporations that exists nowhere within the Civil Follow Act.” (The court docket cited the aforementioned single mother and father and different busy, responsibility-laden employees in a footnote explaining why everybody in search of to duck a deposition in Georgia should show good trigger.)

Georgia is the seventh state explicitly to refuse to undertake the apex doctrine, following Oklahoma, Missouri, Colorado, Connecticut, New York and North Carolina. In an amicus temporary on behalf of the plaintiffs within the Georgia case, the American Affiliation for Justice stated the apex doctrine is “a dying judicial assemble.” (A number of pro-business teams argued as GM amici that among the states which have rejected per se adoption of the apex doctrine, together with Missouri and Oklahoma, have however utilized its ideas.)

The Georgia justices remanded the case — wherein Glenda Marie Buchanan’s surviving relations allege that her 2014 demise was the results of a faulty steering sensor in her GM Trailblazer — to the trial court docket with directions to investigate all of GM’s arguments for why CEO Mary Barra shouldn’t be required to sit down for a deposition. GM, which insists that Barra has no distinctive information and that the Buchanans can get the data they search from different witnesses, stated in an electronic mail assertion that it’s desperate to renew its movement for a protecting order.

Advertisement

Buchanan counsel Darren Summerville of The Summerville Agency and Lance Cooper of The Cooper Agency advised me they’ve already delivered all of the proof the trial court docket must deny GM’s movement. Barra, they contend, was on the forefront of GM’s effort to advertise car security after the corporate’s ignition change debacle, which price GM’s predecessor greater than $2.6 billion in penalties and settlements. Barra initiated security packages and stated the chief security officer would report on to her on deaths involving GM automobiles. So solely the CEO, in accordance with Buchanan’s legal professionals, can clarify her function in GM’s investigation of the alleged defect on this case.

“This all the time struck me as an odd car to push for apex doctrine,” Summerville advised me. “We’ve such good proof of Barra’s information and former statements.”

One of many key implications of the Supreme Court docket’s opinion, Summerville stated, is that GM will bear the burden on remand of creating good trigger to dam Barra’s testimony. The Supreme Court docket devoted appreciable consideration to the burden of proof, noting that among the many federal courts which have adopted the apex framework, there’s broad variation in its utility. GM requested Georgia to undertake a hybrid model of burden-shifting, wherein executives in search of a protecting order would bear the preliminary accountability of creating, by means of an affidavit, that the execs are “sufficiently high-ranking” and should not have private information of the details of the case. After that prima facie exhibiting, GM stated, it ought to be as much as the opposite aspect to rebut the presumption of excellent trigger for a protecting order barring the deposition.

The Georgia Supreme Court docket made clear that below the state’s discovery guidelines, the burden of proof belongs totally to potential witnesses who’re attempting to dam depositions requests, no matter who these witnesses are. “GM’s formulation would impermissibly shift that burden to the celebration in search of discovery,” Bethel wrote.

Companies are, in fact, free below the brand new ruling to claim arguments primarily based on the apex elements once they search a protecting order shielding executives from being deposed. However trial courts, the Supreme Court docket held, retain case-by-case discretion to resolve if these issues are – or should not – enough.

Advertisement

GM and a number of other of its amici warned the Georgia Supreme Court docket that with out safety from “abusive” discovery calls for, plaintiffs will run amok with requests to depose executives whose time is simply too invaluable to waste. UPS, Delta and Coca-Cola stated of their temporary that rejection of the apex doctrine would place Georgia companies at a “distinctive drawback.”

The Georgia Supreme Court docket suggested them to deliver their coverage arguments to state lawmakers. The justices’ job, they stated, is to interpret Georgia’s discovery guidelines. And below these guidelines, the court docket stated, high-ranking company executives aren’t any totally different from anybody else.

Register now for FREE limitless entry to Reuters.com

Our Requirements: The Thomson Reuters Belief Rules.

Advertisement

Opinions expressed are these of the writer. They don’t replicate the views of Reuters Information, which, below the Belief Rules, is dedicated to integrity, independence, and freedom from bias.

Alison Frankel

Thomson Reuters

Alison Frankel has lined high-stakes industrial litigation as a columnist for Reuters since 2011. A Dartmouth school graduate, she has labored as a journalist in New York protecting the authorized trade and the legislation for greater than three a long time. Earlier than becoming a member of Reuters, she was a author and editor at The American Lawyer. Frankel is the writer of Double Eagle: The Epic Story of the World’s Most Precious Coin.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Georgia

Critics accuse Georgia sheriff of silencing them on social media in lawsuit

Published

on

Critics accuse Georgia sheriff of silencing them on social media in lawsuit


Three Georgia residents are accusing Cobb County Sheriff Craig Owens of violating their free speech rights, alleging in a lawsuit that he silenced their critical opinions on Facebook following a viral incident in which he called deputies to a Burger King over a botched order. 

The legal filing in U.S. District Court lists David Cavender – a Republican who unsuccessfully ran against Owens for the sheriff position this election season – as one of the plaintiffs. 

“Defendant Craig Owens was displeased that certain persons, including the Plaintiffs, were publicly criticizing his performance as the Sheriff of Cobb County, Georgia,” the lawsuit says. “Instead of upholding the First Amendment and stomaching speech he found personally distasteful, Owens decided instead to utilize the powers of his office to censor the speech of Plaintiffs, and others, based on viewpoint.” 

An attorney wrote that in October, in the weeks leading up to Election Day, a video that emerged of “Owens utilizing Cobb County Sheriff deputies to intercede in a personal dispute with Burger King employees became viral” and that the plaintiffs “had been leveling harsh criticism against Owens” over it and other matters. 

Advertisement

GEORGIA SHERIFF CALLS DEPUTIES FOR HELP AFTER BECOMING UPSET THAT BURGER KING GOT HIS ORDER WRONG 

READ THE FILING BELOW. APP USERS: CLICK HERE

In that March 2023 incident, three deputies were dispatched to the fast-food restaurant in Mableton with sirens blaring. 

“Hey, do me a favor. I need to get, all I need is the owner name of whoever owns this damn facility or the manager,” Owens is heard telling one deputy who showed up on scene. 

“I wanted her [to get his female passenger] a Whopper, no mayo, cut in half, right?” he continued. 

The sheriff added: “I don’t need no damn money back no more. I just need to find out who owns this place so I can do an official complaint.” 

The lawsuit says on Oct. 29 of this year, Owens put in place “sweeping restrictions” over who can post comments on the Cobb County Sheriff Office’s Facebook page. 

Advertisement

EX-GEORGIA POLL WORKER INDICTED FOR MAILING BOMB THREAT TO POLLING PLACE: FBI 

Cobb County Sheriff Craig Owens called his deputies to the Burger King on Veterans Memorial Highway in Mableton on March 4, 2023.  (Cobb County Sheriff’s Office)

“On information and belief, these restrictions were put in place because of the viewpoint of commenters’ posts grew increasingly critical of Owens and his performance as Sheriff; in other words Owens put the restrictions in place to prevent the expression of a viewpoint,” the lawsuit says, adding that some of the posts made by the plaintiffs were deleted or hidden by the Sheriff’s Office Facebook account. 

The Sheriff’s Office then wrote on Nov. 1 that it is “committed to providing a safe and respectful space on our social media channels.  

“To keep our posts focused on community safety updates and educational info, we’ve turned off the comments feature,” it added. 

Advertisement

The lawsuit is asking a judge to “declare the actions of Defendant Owens… to be view-point based restrictions in violation of the First Amendment”, prohibit his “unlawful practice of retaliatory censorship” and to prevent him “from deleting comments, blocking posters, or restricting commenters to those who are friends or referenced within posts,” among other damages. 

Burger King

The lawsuit against Cobb County Sheriff Craig Owens states the plaintiffs posted critical comments of him online following an incident involving the sheriff at a Burger King in Georgia last year. (Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

Both the Cobb County Sheriff’s Office and the law firm that filed the lawsuit did not immediately respond Thursday to requests for comment from Fox News Digital. 

Fox News’ Landon Mion contributed to this report. 

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Georgia

Lefty Georgia DA in Laken Riley case faces outrage after killer migrant avoids death penalty

Published

on

Lefty Georgia DA in Laken Riley case faces outrage after killer migrant avoids death penalty


The progressive Georgia district attorney who was prosecuting nursing student Laken Riley’s illegal immigrant killer refused to seek the death penalty even after removing herself from the case – drawing outrage when the defendant was sentenced to life without parole.

Athens-Clarke District Attorney Deborah Gonzalez, who appointed a special prosecutor to take over the prosecution of Jose Ibarra at the end of February amid criticism over her own prosecutorial record, laid out her soft-on-crime reforms when she assumed office in January 2021.

Gonzalez said her office would “no longer seek the death penalty” and when considering charging defendants, she would “take into account collateral consequences to undocumented defendants,” according to a copy of the district attorney’s policies shared by Georgia State Rep. Houston Gaines.

Clarke County District Attorney Deborah Gonzalez refused to seek the death penalty even after removing herself from the case. AP

Ibarra, a 26-year-old Tren de Arangua gang member, was sentenced Wednesday to life without parole after being convicted of murdering the 22-year-old college student. His sentence angered many Republicans, including Gaines, who felt the killer should get the death penalty.

Advertisement

Gonzalez announced this spring would not seek the death penalty against Ibarra, stating, “our utmost duty is to ensure that justice is served and that the victim’s family is an integral part of the deliberation process.”

She also acknowledged critics will seek to “exploit this case for political gain,” but legal decisions must “always transcend political considerations,” according to WRDW.

The decision appears in line with what Gonzalez told staff in 2021.

“Cases which are legally eligible for the death penalty are eligible for sentences of life without parole and life with parole eligibility after serving thirty years,” she wrote.

Laken Riley was brutally killed in February. Allyson Phillips/Facebook

“Both of these sentences constitute very substantial punishment. Decisions to seek the sentence of life without parole are a sentence of death in prison.”

Advertisement

She also reportedly said the office would take into account “collateral consequences to undocumented defendants,” when making charging decisions.

GOP lawmakers were incensed that Ibarra would not face the death penalty.

Tren de Arangua gang member Jose Ibarra was found guilty of Riley’s murder on Wednesday. AP

“If there was ever a case where the death penalty was appropriate, this is it,” Gaines tweeted Wednesday.

Meanwhile state Sen. Colton Moore called on the state attorney general to intervene.

“I am officially calling on Attorney General Chris Carr to file an emergency motion to intervene and demand the death penalty for the murderer of Laken Riley,” he tweeted.

Advertisement

“District Attorney Deborah Gonzalez let her radical political agenda stand in the way of justice. By refusing to seek the death penalty, she denied Laken’s family, friends, and community the full measure of justice they deserve.”

Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene also weighed in.

“Jose Ibarra deserves the death penalty,” she tweeted. “Just as Laken’s mother Allyson asked the judge, Laken’s evil (murderer) deserves exactly what he gave to Laken.”

Gonzalez lost her reelection bid this month by a 20-percentage point margin.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Georgia

Georgia football recruiting: Bulldogs land four-star in-state edge rusher Chase Linton

Published

on

Georgia football recruiting: Bulldogs land four-star in-state edge rusher Chase Linton


play

Georgia football added another coveted in-state piece to its 2025 recruiting haul on Wednesday when it landed a commitment from a four-star edge rusher.

North Atlanta’s Chase Linton announced his pledge to Georgia over Rutgers, where he was previously committed, and Georgia Tech. He played around at his ceremony like he was going to pick the other schools before finally revealing that he picked the Bulldogs and put on a Georgia cap and showed a Bulldogs shirt.

Advertisement

“Go Dawgs!” he said in an announcement streamed on Instagram.

The 6-foot-5, 220-pound Linton is ranked as the nation’s No. 180 overall prospect and No. 17 edge rusher by the 247 Sports Composite.

“He has a heck of a burst for a guy for his height and his size,” North Atlanta football assistant coach Bryce Doe, who coached Linton the last three years as head track and field coach, told the Athens Banner-Herald. “He hasn’t run a lot of running events in track and field, but I can tell you for the first 60 meters he’s just as fast as any kid out there. He’s just as fast as any DB or receiver for the first 60 meters.”

Linton was third in the region in the triple jump last year at 44.85 and finished a spot outside of qualifying for the state meet.

“He came in just as tall as he is now, but he was kind of awkward and uncoordinated is a good way to describe him in his first year,” Doe said.

Advertisement

Linton started to show his speed and explosion as a sophomore, Doe said, “and started to put it together.”

Linton, this season, had 51 tackles including 31 solos with 16 tackles for loss and 9 sacks.

He’s the 26th commitment for Georgia’s 2025 class.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending