New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Case No. A07A0985

by: Varsha Mandiga

Case No. A07A0985 BUSA 2106

Varsha Mandiga
GPA 4.0

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Case Briefs
Legal Environment Of Business
Class Notes
BUSA, 2106, GSU, Ryan
25 ?




Popular in Legal Environment Of Business

Popular in Department

This 2 page Class Notes was uploaded by Varsha Mandiga on Thursday March 10, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to BUSA 2106 at Georgia State University taught by Grelecki in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 13 views.


Reviews for Case No. A07A0985


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 03/10/16
Varsha Mandiga WILSON v. The HOME DEPOT USA, INC.  FACTS Case No. A07A0985. When: Decided: November 7, 2007 Where: Court of Appeals of Georgia. Who: Appellant – Gary C. Harris.     Appellees – Jones Day, Rebekah R. Bennett, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, John F.      Wymer III.      RUFFIN, Judge.  What: Robert Wilson sued The Home Depot USA, Inc., for invasion of privacy and intentional       infliction of emotional distress.  The trial court dismissed Wilson's complaint with prejudice       based upon Wilson's alleged failure to comply with a court order. On appeal, Wilson      challenges this ruling.   He also contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for      summary judgment on the issue of Home Depot's liability.   For the following reasons, we      affirm in part and reverse in part.  ISSUE(S)  The relevant facts show that Wilson and his wife, Martha Carver, divorced in 1997. Wilson  retained physical custody of their child.   Carver learned that Wilson no longer worked for Home Depot, she called the Georgia store,  using Home Depot's inter­store telephone system. Carver then subpoenaed Wilson's  employment records for use in a custody dispute in Tennessee.   Wilson filed suit against Home Depot, alleging claims for invasion of privacy and intentional  infliction of emotional distress. Wilson initially stated that he lost custody of his child  because the Tennessee judge believed he had a drug problem. Wilson also claimed that the  injury he suffered as a result of Home Depot's conduct was “pretty much” the loss of custody.  Home Depot moved for summary judgment, arguing, inter alia, that Wilson was unable to  show he was damaged by Home Depot's alleged tortious disclosure of his failed drug test.   Home Depot pointed to Wilson's deposition testimony that his injury was the loss of his son,  coupled with his attorney's statement that the loss of custody was unrelated to the failed drug  test.   Wilson, he complied with this mandate by amending his complaint. Notwithstanding this  amendment to the complaint, the trial court dismissed Wilson's complaint with prejudice on  the basis that Wilson “failed to set out any damages which resulted from the alleged negligent conduct of Home Depot.” The trial court found Wilson's failure constituted contumacious  conduct that warranted dismissal. Wilson appeals this ruling.  In a separate claim of error, Wilson contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion  for summary judgment on the issue of Home Depot's liability.  RULE(S)  OCGA § 9­11­37. Failure to make discovery; motion to compel; sanctions; expenses. ANAYLSIS   The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment with respect to the intentional  infliction of emotional distress claim, but it denied the motion with respect to the invasion of  privacy claim.   The dismissal of a complaint for failure to comply with a court order is the most severe  sanction available and one that is generally warranted where the plaintiff has engaged in  contumacious conduct or has wilfully disregarded a court order.  Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows that there is no genuine issue of  material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.13  We  review a trial court's ruling on motion for summary judgment de novo, and we construe the  evidence, and all reasonable conclusions drawn therefrom, in a light favorable to the  nonmoving party.  CONCLUSION  According to Wilson, Carver had no legitimate need to know and thus was not privileged to  receive the information.   Indeed, the evidence shows that Home Depot's policy limited the  dissemination of personnel information to “salaried management who have a need to know”  the information. However, the evidence also shows that Carver was an assistant manager who contacted Home Depot, using an intra­Home Depot phone system and was given a code for  Wilson's termination that only a Home Depot manager could interpret.   Under these  circumstances, we find there is at least an issue of fact as to whether the communication was  privileged.   Thus, the trial court did not err in denying Wilson's motion for summary  judgment on the issue of liability.  ­ Judgment reversed. 2


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Amaris Trozzo George Washington University

"I made $350 in just two days after posting my first study guide."

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.