Judge flags sanctions after months of late, incomplete discovery in Lotus at Forest Park litigation

A Clayton County State Court judge warned parties on April 15 that discovery failures by multiple Lotus-related entities have gone too far and ordered immediate steps to put the case back on track.

Esther Graphford, counsel for plaintiff Denise Hollingsworth, told the judge the property’s management and ownership were structured through several sister companies that produced late, incomplete, or mis‑labeled responses to written discovery and court orders, despite months of meet‑and‑confers and a prior court order compelling production. “They consciously and intentionally refused to respond to discovery,” Graphford said, describing months of follow‑up and a motion filed in March to strike an answer for one entity.

Defense counsel Bruce Brown acknowledged past lapses but said his clients had since produced additional materials and argued sanctions should be calibrated to avoid disproportionate harm. “Forest Park management finally did what it was supposed to do,” Brown told the judge, noting supplemental documents and depositions that have since been provided.

The judge criticized what she described as systemic client control problems and gamesmanship among related corporate defendants, and said she was prepared to impose stern remedies if the ordered production did not occur. “There are only so many games I’m going to put up with. If the court directed you to produce and it wasn't done, sanctions will follow,” she said. She directed counsel to ensure the management contract and tenant files identified in the parties’ briefs be turned over under the court’s existing timelines and to present agreed draft orders that implement narrower, specific production deadlines and a privilege log process.

Plaintiff attorneys told the judge they had documents used in depositions weeks earlier that had not been produced; the judge said those belated productions reinforced the need for teeth in enforcement. The judge reserved the possibility of monetary sanctions and reiterated that stripping an answer (the most severe sanction) remained on the table if willful noncompliance persisted.

What’s next: The court ordered written orders addressing discovery deadlines and privilege logs; counsel were told to meet client representatives, tighten document searches and produce missing categories within the schedules the judge will set. She also instructed counsel to consider a client‑level meeting to prevent further breakdowns in compliance.