Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Mableton Parkway CVS, Inc. v. Salter
Citations: 561 S.E.2d 478; 254 Ga. App. 162; 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 811; 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 296Docket: A01A1899
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; March 8, 2002; Georgia; State Appellate Court
A Georgia Court of Appeals case, Mableton Parkway CVS, Inc. v. Salter, addresses whether a corporation's designated witness's lack of knowledge justifies contempt for failing to comply with a court-ordered deposition under OCGA § 9-11-30(b)(6). The court affirms the contempt finding against CVS for not providing a knowledgeable witness but reverses the order to disclose settlement amounts from other cases, deeming that information irrelevant. The background involves Frances Salter suing CVS for damages from a misfilled prescription and seeking to depose a representative knowledgeable about similar lawsuits against CVS. CVS initially sought to block this inquiry, but the court required compliance. The designated witness could only provide limited information about related lawsuits and could not confirm the completeness of CVS’s list of cases. Salter moved for contempt, seeking sanctions and attorney fees. The court ordered CVS to provide competent witnesses and cover Salter's attorney fees, but did not impose the requested $100,000 sanction. CVS appealed, arguing against the contempt finding and the disclosure of settlement amounts. The ruling emphasizes that a party can face sanctions for willfully violating a discovery order, requiring only a conscious failure to comply rather than actual willfulness. Salter moved to compel CVS's deposition after the court denied CVS's protective order in October 1999. The court mandated CVS to designate a knowledgeable representative, but CVS delayed until late March 2000, with the deposition occurring in April 2000—one year post-notice and six months after the court's order. The representative was unable to provide fundamental information about CVS's involvement in 25 lawsuits related to the case, failing to confirm basic details such as whether CVS had filed an answer or the status of the cases. CVS argued that the representative's minimal knowledge sufficed under the court's order, but the court found this to demonstrate willful disobedience of discovery requirements. The imposed sanction consisted of attorney fees amounting to $3,600, which the court deemed appropriate given its broad discretion in discovery matters. However, the court abused its discretion by compelling CVS to disclose settlement amounts for similar tort cases in Georgia, which is generally prohibited under OCGA 24-3-37 to encourage settlement negotiations. Salter had not sought this information during the proceedings, and the court's order lacked evidence or rationale for relevance, leading to its reversal. The order is affirmed in part and reversed in part, with both Andrews, P.J., and Eldridge, J., concurring. The defendant initially identified Revco Discount Drug Centers, Inc. as the proper party but later claimed it should be CVS Pharmacy, Inc., and ultimately reverted to Revco as the correct defendant during a contempt hearing. Both Revco and CVS are subsidiaries of the same parent company, and since discovery has treated the parent as the defendant amid the defendant's inconsistent claims, this issue does not significantly affect the sanctions order's merits. Relevant case law includes Potter v. American Medcare Corp., Resource Network Intl. v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., Mayer v. Interstate Fire Ins. Co., and others, which support the legal context of the proceedings. Additionally, citations to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) and other cases provide further legal grounding pertinent to the matter at hand.