Plaintiff’s Discovery Responses (COS)
Filed 2026-01-28 · By Lucas W. Andrews (Stanton Law LLC), for the Macon Melody · Document type Uniform Superior Court Rule 5.2 Certificate of Service (COS — proof a document was served on the other side) View the PDF →
Legal shorthand used on this page: COS = Certificate of Service. BCSD = Bibb County School District. ORA = Open Records Act. RFA = Request for Admission (a written question asking the other side to admit a fact under oath). RFP = Request for Production (of documents). USCR = Uniform Superior Court Rules (Georgia Superior Court’s procedural rulebook). MSJ = Motion for Summary Judgment (asking the judge to rule without a trial). JH = the minor student at the center of the case. O.C.G.A. § = Official Code of Georgia Annotated, section (Georgia’s state statutes). et seq. = Latin for “and following.”
What is this document?
This is a short certificate filed by the Macon Melody’s (MM’s) new lead counsel, Lucas W. Andrews of Stanton Law LLC in Atlanta, telling the court that on January 28, 2026, the newspaper served its responses to two sets of BCSD (Bibb County School District) discovery: the First Requests for Admission (RFAs — sworn written fact-admit-or-deny questions) and the First Requests for Production (RFPs — document demands).
Like the BCSD certificate that kicked off this exchange a month earlier, this one does not contain the responses themselves. Under Georgia’s Uniform Superior Court Rule 5.2 (USCR 5.2 — part of the Uniform Superior Court Rules, the procedural rulebook for Georgia Superior Court), actual discovery documents are exchanged between counsel and stay off the public docket unless a dispute brings them into a motion. This is the record that the responses were served on time.
The filing is significant less for what it says than for what it implies. The Melody had argued — and continues to argue — that discovery has no proper role in a case brought under the Open Records Act (ORA). But rather than refuse to respond and seek a protective order, the Melody answered BCSD’s questions. That decision has consequences.
At a glance
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Filed | January 28, 2026 |
| Filed by | Lucas W. Andrews (Stanton Law LLC), for the Macon Melody |
| Document type | USCR 5.2 Certificate of Service (Responses to BCSD First RFAs and First RFPs) |
| Served on | Caroline L. Scalf and Bennett D. Bryan (Parker Poe), for BCSD |
Deep dive — legal concepts, explained
Why there’s a typo in the filename
The file saved from the court’s docket is named 280128_COS.pdf. That looks like a date — “280128” — but read literally it would be the year 2801, month 28, day… which isn’t a date. The actual file-stamp on the document is January 28, 2026. Somebody — likely the filer’s document-management system — used a “YYMMDD” numbering scheme and typed the year wrong, producing “28-01-28” instead of “26-01-28.”
It’s a trivial clerical slip, but worth flagging because anyone searching the docket by date sequence could miss this filing if they trust the filename. The document itself is the plaintiff’s January 28, 2026 Certificate of Service.
What a Certificate of Service is and isn’t
A Certificate of Service is a sworn short statement from one lawyer saying: on this date, by this method, I sent these documents to that other lawyer. It’s proof of service. It matters for deadlines — once you’ve been served, the clock starts running on your response window.
What a COS is not: the discovery itself. This filing tells the court the Melody responded, but not how it responded. We know from later filings that BCSD claims several of the Melody’s responses were deficient, prompting a March 16, 2026 “meet and confer” under USCR 6.4 (Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.4, the rule that requires lawyers to try to work out discovery disputes themselves before asking the judge to step in) and amended responses on March 19, 2026. But the individual answers — what the Melody admitted, what it denied, what it objected to — are not visible on the public record from this filing alone.
The tension between plaintiff’s “no discovery in ORA cases” position and the fact they responded anyway
The Georgia Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq. (Official Code of Georgia Annotated, section 50-18-70 “et seq.” — Latin for “and following” — meaning that section plus the ones that follow it), creates a summary procedure. When an agency refuses to produce a public record, the requester can sue, and the statute contemplates a quick legal ruling — usually on cross-motions and a paper record — rather than drawn-out factual litigation. The Melody’s Reply in support of Rule Nisi argued exactly that: this case is about whether a board-approved settlement dollar figure is a public record, full stop. BCSD’s intentions, the requester’s subjective knowledge, the identity of sources — none of that should be relevant.
And yet, when BCSD served written discovery on December 29, 2025, the Melody didn’t move for a protective order under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(c) (section 9-11-26(c) of Georgia’s code — the rule that lets a party ask the court to block or limit abusive discovery). It didn’t ask the court to stop the discovery. It answered. On the record. Under oath.
Why? Several plausible reasons, not mutually exclusive:
- Risk management. If you refuse to respond and lose the protective-order fight, the court can deem your RFAs admitted. That’s catastrophic. Responding preserves the merits fight.
- Counsel transition. Joy Ramsingh was lead counsel through January 8, 2026. Lucas Andrews and Erika Pitzel at Stanton Law substituted in shortly before. New counsel inheriting a case rarely starts by picking new procedural fights they don’t have to pick. Respond first, litigate the theory later.
- Confidence in the answers. If Melody’s denials are truthful and its admissions are narrow, they may believe responding actually helps — RFA 9 (denying any editorial link between the JH settlement and the Alexander II firings) blunts BCSD’s FERPA “requester-knowledge” theory, not strengthens it.
- Keeping the moral high ground. Refusing to answer looks like hiding. Answering and then arguing that the answers don’t matter is a more sympathetic posture.
Strategic implications
By responding without first seeking a protective order, the Melody has effectively consented to the discovery process in this case, at least procedurally. That does not waive the underlying argument that the Open Records Act is meant to be summary — the Melody can and should still press that argument at the merits hearing. But it does make it harder to persuade Judge Smith that discovery is improper as a matter of law, because the record shows the plaintiff went along with it.
It also means every answer the Melody gave is now permanently on the record. If the case survives to the Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ — a request that the judge decide the case without a trial because there is no genuine factual dispute) stage (currently set for April 29, 2026), BCSD will be able to cite those responses back at the newspaper. If the case goes to trial, the responses will bind the Melody’s witnesses. The Melody’s operational decisions about what to admit, what to deny, and what to object to, made privately between counsel in late January 2026, will shape everything that comes after.
Why this matters
For readers watching this case as a test of Georgia’s Open Records Act: the fact that the Melody was forced into written discovery at all is itself a story. Open-records cases are supposed to be fast and cheap — that’s the whole point of the statute’s summary procedure. The district has turned this one into a months-long factual investigation of the newspaper’s own reporting.
For anyone following the journalism angle: by answering under oath, the Melody has also created sworn evidence about its editorial positions. Depending on how RFA 9 was worded and answered, that evidence could later be used — or tried to be used — to characterize the newspaper’s motives in future litigation or public commentary.
This is what a well-resourced institutional defendant looks like when it doesn’t want a record released. Every procedural lever gets pulled.
Read the original
Part of Court Filings · Case No. 2025-CV-083495 · Bibb County Superior Court