Preview
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
LAUREN ASHLEY PAYNE,
PETITIONER, CIVIL ACTION FILE NUMBER
V. 21-A-08580-9
CHAD ELLIS TAYLOR,
RESPONDENT.
MOTION TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY
COMES NOW, RESPONDENT, Chad Ellis Taylor, in the above-styled action by and through
his attorney, and, pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule 5.1, files this, his Motion to Re-Open
Discovery, respectfully showing the Court as follows:
I. Introduction
Petitioner seeks to retain sole legal and physical custody of the child while further curtailing
Respondent’s ability to have visitation with the minor child, changing the child’s name to remove
Respondent’s surname, while requiring Respondent to pay child support. In doing so, Petitioner
has made a series of intentionally vague, ambiguous, and spurious allegations intended to cast
Respondent in the most negative light possible to suggest that he’s criminal and absentee father
that abandoned his family and deserves to be erased. But that’s just not true.
The parties have two (2) non-marital children to wit, Colton Ellis Taylor (born 2010) and Cache
Elliott Taylor (Born 2017). Respondent seeks to establish Legitimacy as to the second child,
Cache Elliott Taylor and to have liberal visitation with both children pursuant to a parenting
plan, having also established child support pursuant to Georgia law.
Lauren Ashley Payne v Chad Ellis Taylor
Superior Court Gwinnett County, CAFN: 21-A-08580-9
Motion to Re-Open Discovery
Page 1 of 6
The facts and evidence that will be developed through discovery and at a continued trial, will
show that (1) over many years Petitioner and Respondent had an on-again, off again, relationship
that resulted in two (2) non-marital children—both of whom are at issue here; (2) Respondent
dutifully followed Petitioner all over the country as she continued to take jobs and job training
courses in Utah, Wyoming, Florida, Maine, and Georgia; (3) Petitioner just expected Respondent
to pivot, adjust and provide for the family financially every time she moved the family for her own
career (4) Respondent was sometimes forced to take jobs that required him to live apart from the
family in order to contribute the family financially (5) Petitioner has (“naturally”) blamed
Respondent for, at times, not being able to find work to support the family (6) After the birth of
the parties’ first, non-marital child, Colton Ellis Taylor but before the birth of the parties’ second,
non-marital child Colton Ellis Taylor, Petitioner married and divorced a man by the name of DJ
Hill (7) in 2018 the parties to the instant litigation were engaged to be married (8) Respondent has
never abandoned the family and has continued to be an interested and engaged father that wants
to have a close relationship with his sons Colton Ellis and Cache Elliott and who has moved closer
to them geographically to facilitate visitation (9) Respondent should have liberal visitation with
his boys and there is no reason to remove Respondent’s surname “Taylor” from the boys’ names.
Given what’s at stake here, Respondent should be permitted to engage in discovery
including written discovery and depositions, and Respondent should not be penalized and denied
discovery, bullied at a pre-mediation settlement conference, and forced to go to trial without
discovery simply because he previously represented himself pro se.
II. Procedural Background
Petitioner’s Petition for Registration of Foreign Child Custody Determination, Petition to
Modify Custody and Support, and Petition to Change name of Minor Child was filed on November
Lauren Ashley Payne v Chad Ellis Taylor
Superior Court Gwinnett County, CAFN: 21-A-08580-9
Motion to Re-Open Discovery
Page 2 of 6
2, 2021. Respondent was served on March 1, 2022 and an Affidavit of Service was field on March
18, 2022.Respondent, Pro Se, filed his Answer on April 7, 2022. On or about September 15, 2022,
Respondent retained undersigned counsel. Undersigned counsel entered an appearance on
September 22, 2022. Respondent filed his Amended Answer and Counterclaim on September
26, 2022. Prior to September 22, 2022, neither party propounded written discovery requests or
took any party’s deposition. Discovery is now closed but should be reopened and the trial
continued.
III. Relevant Facts
The parties have never exchanged written discovery or take deposition testimony in order
needed to refute Petitioner’s allegations and to ascertain the full and complete basis for the relief
she now seeks—full legal and physical custody plus more restrictions on visitation, removal of
Petitioner’s surname for the child(ren)’s names—and an award of child support.
IV. Legal Argument and Authorities
Respondent respectfully requests that the court allow for Discovery to be re-opened to
ascertain the full and complete factual basis for the relief Petitioner now seeks-- full legal and
physical custody plus more restrictions on visitation, removal of Petitioner’s surname for the
child(ren)’s names—and an award of child support.
“The goal of discovery is the fair resolution of legal disputes, ‘to remove the potential for
secrecy and hiding of material.’” International Harvester Co. v. Cunningham, 538 S.E.2d 82, 84
(Ga. App. 2000) (internal citations omitted). “Discovery is an ongoing process, requiring parties
to evaluate and reassess evidence as new evidence is presented.” Id. “The broad purpose of the
discovery rules, under the Civil Practice Act, is to enable the parties to prepare for trial so that each
party will know the issues and be fully prepared on the facts.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
Lauren Ashley Payne v Chad Ellis Taylor
Superior Court Gwinnett County, CAFN: 21-A-08580-9
Motion to Re-Open Discovery
Page 3 of 6
“Discovery is specifically designed to fulfill a two-fold purpose: issue formulation and factual
revelation.” Id. “While the extent of discovery is generally within the discretion of the trial court
judge, this discretion must be based on sound legal analysis with an eye to promoting the purpose
of discovery and limiting its abuse. Discovery should not be prohibited where the effect is to
frustrate that purpose and prevent legitimate discovery.” Id. at 85 (emphasis added). “The purpose
and spirit of this discovery procedure is to eliminate the element of surprise.” Nathan v. Duncan,
149 S.E.2d 383, 392 (Ga. App. 1966).
Furthermore, the information that Respondent seeks by way of the above-described
discovery measures is relevant to this litigation. “In the discovery context, courts should and
ordinarily do interpret ‘relevant’ very broadly to mean matter that is relevant to anything that is
or may become an issue in the litigation.” Ewing v. Ewing, 777 S.E.2d 56, 58 (Ga. App. 2015)
(emphasis added). “It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible
at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.” Id., at 58.
Discovery should be pursued diligently. Uniform Superior Court Rule 5.1 states:
In order for a party to utilize the court's compulsory process to compel discovery,
any desired discovery procedures must first be commenced promptly, pursued
diligently and completed without unnecessary delay and within 6 months after the
filing of the answer. In any action in which an answer is not filed within 30 days of
service, or by the date set forth in any extension or court order, the 6-month period
shall begin to run 30 days after service. At any time, the court, in its discretion, may
open, extend, reopen or shorten the time to utilize the court's compulsory process
to compel discovery.
“[D]iscovery need not be completed within six months, just promptly and diligently
pursued by the moving party within that time period.” Toles v. G&K Services, Inc., 496 S.E.2d
550, 552 (Ga. App. 1998).”
Lauren Ashley Payne v Chad Ellis Taylor
Superior Court Gwinnett County, CAFN: 21-A-08580-9
Motion to Re-Open Discovery
Page 4 of 6
In the instant case, Respondent was representing himself and was not even aware of the
discovery process, its purpose, and why it was and is needed in this case. After retaining legal
counsel Respondent now understands the nature of the allegations against him, the implications
inherent in the relief requested by Petitioner and the full nature of his rights and obligations
including his right to formal discovery A trial court has wide discretion to shorten, extend, or
reopen the time for discovery, and its decision will not be reversed unless a clear abuse of that
discretion is shown.” Lawrence v. Direct Mortgage Lenders Corp., 563 S.E.2d 533, 535 (Ga. App.
2002) (emphasis added).
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that:
(a) Petitioner is served with this Motion to Reopen Discovery;
(b) Respondent’s Motion to Reopen Discovery be GRANTED;
(c) The discovery period in this matter be re-opened for a period of 60 days
with a continuing duty to supplement, commencing on the date of the
granting of Defendant’s instant Motion, whichever is later;
(d) That a Rule Nisi issue and a hearing be held requiring Petitioner to appear
and state why Respondent should not be granted the relief requested
herein; and
(e) For any and all other relief this court deems just and proper.
Signature Page to Follow
Lauren Ashley Payne v Chad Ellis Taylor
Superior Court Gwinnett County, CAFN: 21-A-08580-9
Motion to Re-Open Discovery
Page 5 of 6
This 26th day of September 2022.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
HOBSON & HOBSON, P.C
/s/ Geoff Wolfe
____________________________
Geoff Wolfe, Esq.
Georgia Bar No.: 142130
Attorneys for the Respondent
136 Fairground St. NE
Marietta, Georgia 30060
770.425.3373
geoff@hobsonlegal.com
Lauren Ashley Payne v Chad Ellis Taylor
Superior Court Gwinnett County, CAFN: 21-A-08580-9
Motion to Re-Open Discovery
Page 6 of 6
Preview
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA LAUREN ASHLEY PAYNE, PETITIONER, CIVIL ACTION FILE NUMBER V. 21-A-08580-9 CHAD ELLIS TAYLOR, RESPONDENT. MOTION TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY COMES NOW, RESPONDENT, Chad Ellis Taylor, in the above-styled action by and through his attorney, and, pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule 5.1, files this, his Motion to Re-Open Discovery, respectfully showing the Court as follows: I. Introduction Petitioner seeks to retain sole legal and physical custody of the child while further curtailing Respondent’s ability to have visitation with the minor child, changing the child’s name to remove Respondent’s surname, while requiring Respondent to pay child support. In doing so, Petitioner has made a series of intentionally vague, ambiguous, and spurious allegations intended to cast Respondent in the most negative light possible to suggest that he’s criminal and absentee father that abandoned his family and deserves to be erased. But that’s just not true. The parties have two (2) non-marital children to wit, Colton Ellis Taylor (born 2010) and Cache Elliott Taylor (Born 2017). Respondent seeks to establish Legitimacy as to the second child, Cache Elliott Taylor and to have liberal visitation with both children pursuant to a parenting plan, having also established child support pursuant to Georgia law. Lauren Ashley Payne v Chad Ellis Taylor Superior Court Gwinnett County, CAFN: 21-A-08580-9 Motion to Re-Open Discovery Page 1 of 6 The facts and evidence that will be developed through discovery and at a continued trial, will show that (1) over many years Petitioner and Respondent had an on-again, off again, relationship that resulted in two (2) non-marital children—both of whom are at issue here; (2) Respondent dutifully followed Petitioner all over the country as she continued to take jobs and job training courses in Utah, Wyoming, Florida, Maine, and Georgia; (3) Petitioner just expected Respondent to pivot, adjust and provide for the family financially every time she moved the family for her own career (4) Respondent was sometimes forced to take jobs that required him to live apart from the family in order to contribute the family financially (5) Petitioner has (“naturally”) blamed Respondent for, at times, not being able to find work to support the family (6) After the birth of the parties’ first, non-marital child, Colton Ellis Taylor but before the birth of the parties’ second, non-marital child Colton Ellis Taylor, Petitioner married and divorced a man by the name of DJ Hill (7) in 2018 the parties to the instant litigation were engaged to be married (8) Respondent has never abandoned the family and has continued to be an interested and engaged father that wants to have a close relationship with his sons Colton Ellis and Cache Elliott and who has moved closer to them geographically to facilitate visitation (9) Respondent should have liberal visitation with his boys and there is no reason to remove Respondent’s surname “Taylor” from the boys’ names. Given what’s at stake here, Respondent should be permitted to engage in discovery including written discovery and depositions, and Respondent should not be penalized and denied discovery, bullied at a pre-mediation settlement conference, and forced to go to trial without discovery simply because he previously represented himself pro se. II. Procedural Background Petitioner’s Petition for Registration of Foreign Child Custody Determination, Petition to Modify Custody and Support, and Petition to Change name of Minor Child was filed on November Lauren Ashley Payne v Chad Ellis Taylor Superior Court Gwinnett County, CAFN: 21-A-08580-9 Motion to Re-Open Discovery Page 2 of 6 2, 2021. Respondent was served on March 1, 2022 and an Affidavit of Service was field on March 18, 2022.Respondent, Pro Se, filed his Answer on April 7, 2022. On or about September 15, 2022, Respondent retained undersigned counsel. Undersigned counsel entered an appearance on September 22, 2022. Respondent filed his Amended Answer and Counterclaim on September 26, 2022. Prior to September 22, 2022, neither party propounded written discovery requests or took any party’s deposition. Discovery is now closed but should be reopened and the trial continued. III. Relevant Facts The parties have never exchanged written discovery or take deposition testimony in order needed to refute Petitioner’s allegations and to ascertain the full and complete basis for the relief she now seeks—full legal and physical custody plus more restrictions on visitation, removal of Petitioner’s surname for the child(ren)’s names—and an award of child support. IV. Legal Argument and Authorities Respondent respectfully requests that the court allow for Discovery to be re-opened to ascertain the full and complete factual basis for the relief Petitioner now seeks-- full legal and physical custody plus more restrictions on visitation, removal of Petitioner’s surname for the child(ren)’s names—and an award of child support. “The goal of discovery is the fair resolution of legal disputes, ‘to remove the potential for secrecy and hiding of material.’” International Harvester Co. v. Cunningham, 538 S.E.2d 82, 84 (Ga. App. 2000) (internal citations omitted). “Discovery is an ongoing process, requiring parties to evaluate and reassess evidence as new evidence is presented.” Id. “The broad purpose of the discovery rules, under the Civil Practice Act, is to enable the parties to prepare for trial so that each party will know the issues and be fully prepared on the facts.” Id. (internal citation omitted). Lauren Ashley Payne v Chad Ellis Taylor Superior Court Gwinnett County, CAFN: 21-A-08580-9 Motion to Re-Open Discovery Page 3 of 6 “Discovery is specifically designed to fulfill a two-fold purpose: issue formulation and factual revelation.” Id. “While the extent of discovery is generally within the discretion of the trial court judge, this discretion must be based on sound legal analysis with an eye to promoting the purpose of discovery and limiting its abuse. Discovery should not be prohibited where the effect is to frustrate that purpose and prevent legitimate discovery.” Id. at 85 (emphasis added). “The purpose and spirit of this discovery procedure is to eliminate the element of surprise.” Nathan v. Duncan, 149 S.E.2d 383, 392 (Ga. App. 1966). Furthermore, the information that Respondent seeks by way of the above-described discovery measures is relevant to this litigation. “In the discovery context, courts should and ordinarily do interpret ‘relevant’ very broadly to mean matter that is relevant to anything that is or may become an issue in the litigation.” Ewing v. Ewing, 777 S.E.2d 56, 58 (Ga. App. 2015) (emphasis added). “It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id., at 58. Discovery should be pursued diligently. Uniform Superior Court Rule 5.1 states: In order for a party to utilize the court's compulsory process to compel discovery, any desired discovery procedures must first be commenced promptly, pursued diligently and completed without unnecessary delay and within 6 months after the filing of the answer. In any action in which an answer is not filed within 30 days of service, or by the date set forth in any extension or court order, the 6-month period shall begin to run 30 days after service. At any time, the court, in its discretion, may open, extend, reopen or shorten the time to utilize the court's compulsory process to compel discovery. “[D]iscovery need not be completed within six months, just promptly and diligently pursued by the moving party within that time period.” Toles v. G&K Services, Inc., 496 S.E.2d 550, 552 (Ga. App. 1998).” Lauren Ashley Payne v Chad Ellis Taylor Superior Court Gwinnett County, CAFN: 21-A-08580-9 Motion to Re-Open Discovery Page 4 of 6 In the instant case, Respondent was representing himself and was not even aware of the discovery process, its purpose, and why it was and is needed in this case. After retaining legal counsel Respondent now understands the nature of the allegations against him, the implications inherent in the relief requested by Petitioner and the full nature of his rights and obligations including his right to formal discovery A trial court has wide discretion to shorten, extend, or reopen the time for discovery, and its decision will not be reversed unless a clear abuse of that discretion is shown.” Lawrence v. Direct Mortgage Lenders Corp., 563 S.E.2d 533, 535 (Ga. App. 2002) (emphasis added). WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that: (a) Petitioner is served with this Motion to Reopen Discovery; (b) Respondent’s Motion to Reopen Discovery be GRANTED; (c) The discovery period in this matter be re-opened for a period of 60 days with a continuing duty to supplement, commencing on the date of the granting of Defendant’s instant Motion, whichever is later; (d) That a Rule Nisi issue and a hearing be held requiring Petitioner to appear and state why Respondent should not be granted the relief requested herein; and (e) For any and all other relief this court deems just and proper. Signature Page to Follow Lauren Ashley Payne v Chad Ellis Taylor Superior Court Gwinnett County, CAFN: 21-A-08580-9 Motion to Re-Open Discovery Page 5 of 6 This 26th day of September 2022. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, HOBSON & HOBSON, P.C /s/ Geoff Wolfe ____________________________ Geoff Wolfe, Esq. Georgia Bar No.: 142130 Attorneys for the Respondent 136 Fairground St. NE Marietta, Georgia 30060 770.425.3373 geoff@hobsonlegal.com Lauren Ashley Payne v Chad Ellis Taylor Superior Court Gwinnett County, CAFN: 21-A-08580-9 Motion to Re-Open Discovery Page 6 of 6