
    RL BB ACQ I-GA CVL, LLC v. WORKMAN, et al.
    A16A1512
    Court of Appeals of Georgia.
    November 20, 2018
    Michael Anthony Shaw, April Reeves Freeman, Christopher Hollis Ezell, Stephen Paul Dronby, Ben H. Harris, for Appellant.
    Brent William Herrin, Gus H. Small, Benjamin S. Klehr, Atlanta, for Appellee.
   GOBEIL, Judge.

In Workman v. RL BB ACQ I-GA, LLC , 303 Ga. 693, 814 S.E.2d 696 (2018) (" Workman II "), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed in part and affirmed in part the judgment of this Court in RL BB ACQ I-GA, LLC v. Workman , 341 Ga. App. 127, 798 S.E.2d 677 (2017) (" Workman I "). Accordingly, we vacate Divisions 1 and 6 of our earlier opinion and in their stead, we adopt the opinion of the Supreme Court as our own. In light of the foregoing, we hold as follows:

1. Because neither Honey Workman nor any of the Workman LLCs (collectively, the "Third Parties") were parties to the underlying litigation, they were not entitled to an award of attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 for conduct involved in post-judgment discovery. See Workman II , 303 Ga. at 697-698 (1), 814 S.E.2d 696. Accordingly, we reverse that part of the trial court's order awarding the Third Parties costs and fees under that statute.

2. For the reasons explained in Workman I , we reverse that part of the trial court's order awarding the Third Parties the expenses and fees they incurred in preparing for and attending Honey Workman's deposition. Workman I , 341 Ga. App. at 136-137 (3), 798 S.E.2d 677. We also reverse that part of the trial court's order barring RL BB ACQ I-GA CVL, LLC ("Rialto") from deposing Honey Workman for a period of five years. Id. at 137-138 (4), 798 S.E.2d 677.

3. Also for the reasons explained in our original opinion, we reverse that part of the trial court's order awarding the Third Parties the expenses they incurred in pursuing their motion for sanctions. Id. at 138-139 (5), 798 S.E.2d 677.

4. We affirm that part of the trial court's order awarding the Third Parties $18,394.63 in attorney fees and costs incurred in obtaining the protective order at issue. See OCGA §§ 9-11-26 (c), 9-11-37 (a) (4) (A) ; Workman II , 303 Ga. at 698-701 (2), 814 S.E.2d 696.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Ellington, P. J., and Mercier, J., concur. 
      
      The relevant facts, including a detailed description of the parties involved in both the underlying litigation and the current appeal, may be found in Workman I . See 341 Ga. App. at 127-132, 798 S.E.2d 677.
     