O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-11-29 (2019)

Stipulations regarding discovery procedure

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Unless the court orders otherwise, the parties may, by written stipulation: (1) Provide that depositions may be taken before any person, at any time or place, upon any notice, and in any manner and, when so taken, may be used like other depositions; and (2) Modify the procedures provided by this chapter for other methods of discovery.

History

(Ga. L. 1966, p. 609, § 29; Ga. L. 1972, p. 510, § 2.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Waiver of objection to videotape of deposition. - Objection based on lack of court order allowing videotaping of deposition was waived since no objection to the videotaping was raised prior to trial. Even if the objection was timely made at trial, any error in the admission of the videotaped deposition was harmless since the videotaping was conducted in substantial compliance with required technical conditions and procedures. DuBois v. Ray, 177 Ga. App. 349, 339 S.E.2d 605 (1985). Modification of discovery procedures. - Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to a mortgagee on the mortgagors’ claims for wrongful eviction and trespass because the mortga-

gors failed to adhere to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-36(a)(2) since the mortgagors never answered or objected to the mortgagees’ requests for admission within the statutory time period, and thus, the requests were deemed admitted by the mortgagors; the mortgagor’s reliance upon § 9-11-36(b) was misplaced under the circumstances because the parties modified the statutory discovery procedures by stipulation pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-29(2). Ikomoni v. Exec. Asset Mgmt., LLC, 309 Ga. App. 81, 709 S.E.2d 282 (2011).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 23 Am. Jur. 2d, Depositions and Discovery, § 119. C.J.S. - 26B C.J.S., Depositions, § 176. 27 C.J.S., Discovery, §§ 22, 53, 74, 95, 96, 97, 133. 35A C.J.S., Federal Civil Procedure, §§ 611, 617. 83 C.J.S., Stipulations, § 11.

ALR. - Statements of parties or witnesses as subject of pretrial or other disclosure, production, or inspection, 73 ALR2d 12. Effectiveness of stipulation of parties or attorneys, notwithstanding its violating form requirements, 7 ALR3d 1394.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1986–2011 · leading case: Ikomoni v. Exec. Asset Mgmt., LLC, 709 S.E.2d 282 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ikomoni v. Exec. Asset Mgmt., LLC, 709 S.E.2d 282 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Rather, the plaintiffs simply quote from OCGA § 9-11-36 (b), which provides in relevant part: “Any admission made by a party under this Code section is for the purpose of the pending action only and is not an admission by him for any other purpose, nor may it be used against him…”

Hullender v. State, 344 S.E.2d 207 (Ga. 1986). “” The appellant also cites § 9-11-29 (1), which allows the parties to “[p]rovide that depositions may be taken before any person, at any time or place, upon any notice, and in any manner and, when so taken, may be used like other depositions.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.