MCFADDEN, C. J., MCMILLIAN, P. J., and SENIOR APPELLATE JUDGE
McFadden, Chief Judge.
appeal challenges a trial court order denying a motion to
quash a subpoena for production of documents from a
non-party. Because the court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motion, we affirm.
Facts and procedural posture.
Mellouki and other family members filed a complaint against
the City of Duluth, Georgia, alleging injuries arising from a
motor vehicle collision negligently caused by a Duluth police
officer. The city served a subpoena to produce malpractice
insurance documents on non-party Ortho Sport & Spine
Physicians, LLC, which employs the doctor who treated
Mellouki for his alleged injuries. Ortho filed a motion to
quash the subpoena, claiming that information regarding its
professional malpractice insurance for the doctor is not
relevant to the lawsuit before the court. The city filed a
response, asserting that the doctor who treated Mellouki has
also been identified as a medical expert for the plaintiffs,
that part of the treatment included a surgical procedure
performed by the doctor, and that the plaintiffs' claimed
damages include the amounts charged by the doctor. The city
further asserted that part of its defense is that the doctor
was not qualified to perform the surgery, that he was not
authorized under state law to perform the surgery, and that
the amounts charged for his treatments were not reasonable
and customary. The trial court entered an order denying the
motion to quash, finding that the materials sought in the
subpoena "are reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence as to [the doctor's]
qualifications and whether or [not] his fees were reasonable
and customary." Ortho appeals from that order.
Denial of motion to quash.
contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion to
quash the subpoena for production of documents. "We
review a trial court's ruling on such a motion for abuse
of discretion." WellStar Kennestone Hosp. v.
Roman, 344 Ga.App. 375, 377 (810 S.E.2d 600) (2018). We
find no abuse of discretion in this case.
§ 9-11-45 (a) (1) (B) provides that a "subpoena may
command the person to whom it is directed to produce and
permit inspection and copying of designated books, papers,
documents, or tangible things which constitute or contain
matters within the scope of the examination permitted by
subsection (b) of Code Section 9-11-26[.]"
Under OCGA § 9-11-26 (b) (1), parties may obtain
discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is
relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending
action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the
party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any
other party. Pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-34 (a) (1), a party
may request that another party produce documents containing
matter discoverable within the scope of OCGA § 9-11-26
(b), and OCGA § 9-11-34 (c) (1) establishes that the
discovery of nonprivileged documents also applies to
nonparties. Thus, as with discovery requested from parties,
the only requirements placed by the Georgia legislature on
discovery requested from nonparties is that the documents
must be relevant and nonprivileged.
Speedy Care Transport v. George, 348 Ga.App. 325,
329 (2) (822 S.E.2d 687) (2018) (citations and punctuation
has made no showing that the requested discovery is
privileged; rather, it claims that the requested discovery is
not relevant. However,
[i]n the context of discovery, 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. Even if the information sought would be
inadmissible at trial, it is not a ground for objection if
the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Speedy Care Transport, supra at 329-330 (2)
(citations and punctuation omitted).
recounted above, even if the malpractice insurance
information sought would not be admissible, the trial court
expressly found that it is reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence regarding the
doctor's qualifications and fees. See also OCGA §
9-11-26 (b) (2) (providing in part that a "party may
obtain discovery of the existence and contents of any
insurance agreement under which any person carrying on an
insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a
judgment which may be entered in the action[, ]" but
"[i]nformation concerning the insurance agreement is not
by reason of disclosure admissible in evidence at
trial"). Under these circumstances, "[w]e find no
abuse of discretion, particularly in light of the wide
latitude given to make complete discovery possible, the
burden on [Ortho] to show more than ...