Georgia Code
Article 5 - Depositions and Discovery
§ 9-11-26. General Provisions Governing Discovery

If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery. Paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of Code Section 9-11-37 applies to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.
History. Ga. L. 1966, p. 609, § 26; Ga. L. 1967, p. 226, § 13; Ga. L. 1972, p. 510, § 1; Ga. L. 1984, p. 22, § 9; Ga. L. 1987, p. 3, § 9; Ga. L. 1993, p. 91, § 9.
Cross references.
Protection of communications between victim assistance personnel and victims, § 17-17-9.1 .
Expert opinion testimony in criminal cases, § 24-7-707 .
For further provisions regarding depositions, § 24-10-110 et seq.
Code Commission notes.
Pursuant to Code Section in 1985, a comma was inserted following “parties” in paragraph (e)(3).
U.S. Code.
For provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26, see 28 U.S.C.
Law reviews.
For note discussing discovery and lawyer’s work product exemption, see 24 Ga. B.J. 548 (1962).
For article, “Discovery Proceedings from the Defendant’s Point of View,” see 26 Ga. B.J. 143 (1963).
For comment, “A Study of the Georgia Statutes Relating to Discovery of Documents in Civil Actions,” see 2 Ga. St. B.J. 361 (1966).
For article comparing sections of the Georgia Civil Practice Act with preexisting provisions of the Georgia Code, see 3 Ga. St. B.J. 295 (1967).
For note discussing discovery proceedings available to creditors, see 12 Ga. L. Rev. 814 (1978).
For note, “Preferential Treatment of the United States under Federal Civil Discovery Procedures,” see 13 Ga. L. Rev. 550 (1979).
For note, “Conflicts of Interest in the Liability Insurance Setting,” see 13 Ga. L. Rev. 973 (1979).
For article surveying developments in Georgia trial practice and procedure from mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 275 (1981).
For survey article on trial practice and procedure, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 299 (1982).
For case comment, “Yost v. Torok and Abusive Litigation: A New Tort to Solve an Old Problem,” see 21 Ga. L. Rev. 429 (1986).
For article, “Ex Parte Communications with an Opponent’s Employees and Expert Witnesses: Which Potential Witnesses Can a Lawyer Talk to Without Breaking the Rules?,” see 27 Ga. St. B.J. 6 (1990).
For annual survey on trial practice and procedure, see 42 Mercer L. Rev. 469 (1990).
For article, “Automatic Disclosure in Discovery — The Rush to Reform,” see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 1 (1992).
For article, “In Defense of Automatic Disclosure in Discovery,” see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 655 (1993).
For article, “In Defense of Experimentation with Automatic Disclosure,” see 27 Ga. L. Rev. 665 (1993).
For annual survey article on evidence law, see 52 Mercer L. Rev. 263 (2000).
For article, “Alleviating the Pain of Electronic Discovery: Prospective Consideration of the Zubulake Factors,” see 9 Ga. St. B.J. 24 (2004).
For article, “Georgia’s New Expert Witness Rule: Daubert and More,” see 11 Ga. St. B.J. 16 (No. 2, 2005).
For survey article on trial practice and procedure, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 397 (2008).
For annual survey on torts law, see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 189 (2014).
For annual survey on electronic discovery, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 1109 (2018).
For note, “Georgia’s Approach to Proportionality and Sanctions for the Spoliation of Electronically Stored Information,” see 37 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 603 (2021).
For article with annual survey on trial practice and procedure, see 73 Mercer L. Rev. 265 (2021).