By Clark Karell, Georgia State University College of Law

An interlocutory injunction is a temporary remedy designed to preserve or restore the status quo and keep the parties from injuring one another until the court has had a chance to try the case. Zant v. Dick, 249 Ga. 799, 799 (1982). The grant or denial of an injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge according to the circumstances of each case. Id. Until recently, the test for interlocutory injunctive relief in Georgia courts reflected the broad discretion vested in the trial judge: an injunction was proper to "maintain the status quo until a final hearing if, by balancing the relative equities of the parties, it would appear that the equities favor the party seeking the injunction." Garden Hills Civic Ass'n, Inc. v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 273 Ga. 280, 281 (2000). The applicant was not required to prove that it was likely to succeed on the merits, see id. at 281, it was often considered in conjunction with the balancing of the equities because "[i]f the trial court determines that the law and facts are so adverse to a plaintiff's position that a final order in his favor is unlikely, it may be justified in denying the temporary injunction because of the inconvenience and harm to the defendant if the injunction were granted." Lee v. Environmental Pest & Termite Control, 271 Ga. 371, 373 (1999).

On November 14, the Litigation Section held its monthly Breakfast meeting, which was well attended.  The meeting featured a panel discussion concerning consent protective orders.  The panelists were Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and Judge Wesley B. Tailor from the State Court of Fulton County.  Litigation Section Board Member, Louis R. Cohan of Cohan Law Group moderated and Clark R. Karell, Jr. a Law Student attending Georgia State was kind to participate in preparation of the written materials.  Topics included: (i) over-designation of discovery materials as confidential; (ii) Use of confidential information in litigation between the same parties in other cases; (iii) Disclosure of Confidential Information, and (iv) the tension between the needs of the parties to be able to file information under seal and the public's right to access court records.