Georgia Code
Article 5 - Depositions and Discovery
§ 9-11-37. Failure to Make Discovery; Motion to Compel; Sanctions; Expenses

In lieu of any of the foregoing orders, or in addition thereto, the court shall require the party failing to obey the order or the attorney advising him, or both, to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure, unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
History. Ga. L. 1966, p. 609, § 37; Ga. L. 1967, p. 226, § 18; Ga. L. 1970, p. 157, § 1; Ga. L. 1972, p. 510, § 10; Ga. L. 1984, p. 22, § 9; Ga. L. 1992, p. 6, § 9.
Cross references.
Additional sanctions which may be imposed upon regulated utilities failing to comply with discovery requests of Public Service Commission, § 46-2-57 .
Failure to make discovery and motion to compel discovery in probate court proceedings, Uniform Rules for the Probate Courts, Rule 6.4.
U.S. Code.
For provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 37, and annotations pertaining thereto, see 28 U.S.C.
Law reviews.
For article, “Truth and Uncertainty: Legal Control of the Destruction of Evidence,” see 36 Emory L.J. 1085 (1987).
For annual survey on trial practice and procedure, see 42 Mercer L. Rev. 469 (1990).
For article, “Standing Orders: Filling the Gap Between the Civil Practice Act and the Practice,” see 9 Ga. St. B.J. 28 (2004).
For survey article on trial practice and procedure, see 60 Mercer L. Rev. 397 (2008).
For annual survey on trial practice and procedure, see 61 Mercer L. Rev. 363 (2009).
For annual survey of law on trial practice and procedure, see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 339 (2010).
For note, “Default Judgments Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Georgia Civil Practice Act,” see 7 Ga. St. B.J. 385 (1971).
For note, “Preferential Treatment of the United States Under Federal Civil Discovery Procedures,” see 13 Ga. L. Rev. 550 (1979).
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 comment on Millholland v. Oglesby, 223 Ga. 230 , 154 S.E.2d 194 (1967), see 4 Ga. St. B.J. 392 (1968).
For case comment, “Yost v. Torok and Abusive Litigation: A New Tort to Solve an Old Problem,” see 21 Ga. L. Rev. 429 (1986).