Fulton County Superior Court

***EFILED***RM
Date: 11/20/2023 3:07 PM
Che Alexander, Clerk

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

STATE ELECTION BOARD,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.

2023CV382520

TRUE THE VOTE, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSE TO SUBPOENA

The above-captioned matter is a Petition to Compel Response to State Election Board’s

Subpoena (“Petition”). From a review of the record, the Court makes the following findings and

conclusions.

Parties 1

Plaintiff is a legislatively created state board comprised of members appointed by the

General Assembly and by each political party. The Secretary of State is an ex officio nonvoting

member of the board. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-30. One of Plaintiff’s statutory duties is to investigate the

administration of election laws, with the goal of discovering any irregularities or fraudulence in

primary and general elections. In the event that violations are discovered, Plaintiff reports such to

the Attorney General or the appropriate District Attorney for further investigation and prosecution.

O.C.G.A. § 21-2-31. To this end, Plaintiff has full power to subpoena persons and papers and to

compel witnesses to answer, under oath, any questions which may relate to the question at hand.

In case of a refusal of any person subpoenaed as provided under the relevant statute, such refusal

1
The Court takes judicial notice of the publicly available records of the Georgia Secretary of State at
https://ecorp.sos.ga.gov/BusinessSearch. The judicially noticed facts in this Order concern the existence of certain
filings and filing dates. Such facts are not subject to reasonable dispute because their accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned given their source. O.C.G.A. § 24-2-201.

Page 1 of 6
shall be reported to the appropriate superior court; and said court shall order compliance with the

subpoena. Failure or refusal to obey such order is punishable by contempt. O.C.G.A. § 21-2-33.

Defendant is a nonprofit corporation formed under the laws of Texas. In July 2021,

following application to the Georgia Secretary of State, Defendant was authorized to transact

business in Georgia. 2 On October 28, 2022, Defendant’s certificate of authority was involuntarily

or administratively revoked by the Secretary of State.

Background

In November 2021, Defendant filed multiple complaints with the Secretary of State

concerning the November 2020 general election and the January 2021 run-off election.

On April 21, 2022, Plaintiff issued a Subpoena Duces Tecum (the “Subpoena”) for

Defendant to produce certain documents that Plaintiff asserts are relevant to the investigation of

Defendant’s complaints and to the general investigation of election integrity and security. That

same day, counsel for Defendant, Brock Akers, agreed to accept service of the Subpoena. The

Subpoena was served electronically, as requested by Akers. The Subpoena was also served via

certified mail. The Subpoena directed production of documents and records by April 28, 2022.

On May 5, 2023, Defendant informed Plaintiff that Defendant would not comply with

certain requests in the Subpoena because Defendant did not wish to provide identifying

information of persons to whom Defendant claims to have pledged confidentiality. Defendant also

attempted to withdraw its complaints to the Secretary of State. Plaintiff, however, maintains it has

an open investigation concerning the allegations in Defendant’s complaints, regardless of the status

of Defendant’s complaints.

2
Defendant was registered under control number 21208402. It appears that Defendant was previously registered to
transact business in Georgia from 2012 to 2018 under control number 12069186.

Page 2 of 6
 On May 19, 2023, in compliance with Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.4, Plaintiff sought

to have a good faith discussion with Defendant.

On June 14, 2023, Defendant provided a response to the Subpoena (“First Response”). In

the First Response, Defendant’s answers generally fall within the following categories: (a) stating

certain responsive items were already produced to other state agencies but offering to provide them

again as needed, (b) declining, without legal authority, to produce requested information, and (c)

affirming that Defendant did not retain information and has no way of verifying its claims. In the

First Response, Defendant did not object to the Subpoena on the grounds that any of the requests

were overbroad, unduly burdensome, costly, or irrelevant. Nor did Defendant object to the

propriety or enforceability of the Subpoena. In fact, Defendant concluded the First Response by

offering to assist with logistics in scheduling depositions if Plaintiff was seeking to take them.

On June 30, 2023, Defendant provided an additional response to the Subpoena (“Second

Response”). In its Second Response, Defendant refused to produce information that it previously

agreed to provide. In support of this refusal, Defendant cited a separate lawsuit, its withdrawal of

its complaints to the Secretary of State, the scope of the request exceeding the scope of its

complaints, and Plaintiff’s failure to domesticate the Subpoena.

The Petition was filed on July 11, 2023. On July 21, 2023, a process server served

Defendant via registered agent, Registered Agents, Inc., at 300 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite

100N, Roswell, GA 30076 in Fulton County, with proof of such service filed on July 24, 2023. On

September 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed proof of service upon Defendant via service on the Secretary

of State pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 14-3-1531(d).

Page 3 of 6
Motion to Dismiss

On August 18, 2023, Defendant moved to dismiss the Petition. Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss cites three grounds for dismissal: (1) lack of personal jurisdiction because there is no cause

of action, (2) failure to domesticate the out-of-state Subpoena, and (3) the Subpoena itself is

overbroad, unduly burdensome, costly, seeks irrelevant information that is not in Defendant’s

control or more readily available elsewhere.

Personal Jurisdiction

Defendant argues that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it.

General personal jurisdiction extends to any and all claims brought against a defendant and

does not need to relate to the forum state or the defendant’s activities there. In Georgia, corporate

registration is consent to general jurisdiction. Accordingly, Georgia courts may exercise general

personal jurisdiction over any out-of-state corporation that is authorized to do or transact business

in this state at the time a claim or cause of action arises. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. McCall, 312

Ga. 422 (2021). 3

So, this Court must determine when the claim or cause of action arose. Under O.C.G.A. §

21-2-33, Plaintiff has full power to subpoena persons and papers and must report the refusal of any

person subpoenaed to the appropriate superior court, which shall order compliance with the

subpoena. The word “action” is defined broadly as the “judicial means of enforcing a right.”

O.C.G.A. § 9-2-1. Therefore, Plaintiff has the judicial means for enforcing the subpoena upon the

refusal of a person subpoenaed.

3
The Supreme Court of Georgia held that while applicable statutes do not expressly notify out-of-state corporations
that obtaining authorization to transact business in this State and maintaining a registered office or registered agent in
this State subjects them to general jurisdiction, established precedent, including Allstate Insurance Co. v. Klein, 262
Ga. 599 (1992), notifies out-of-state corporations that their corporate registration will be treated as consent to general
personal jurisdiction in Georgia. The Supreme Court of Georgia further held that this statutory construction accords
with federal due process requirements under Penn. Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co.,
243 U.S. 93 (1917), which were recently upheld in Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023).

Page 4 of 6
 Defendant was a foreign corporation authorized to do business in Georgia from July 2021

until October 2022. The document production deadline in the Subpoena was April 28, 2022. The

right of enforcement – assuming lack of compliance – arose the following business day. Because

Defendant was registered to transact business in Georgia when this cause of action arose, this Court

may exercise general personal jurisdiction over the Defendant as to the claim in the Petition.

Domestication of the Subpoena

Defendant claims that the Subpoena is unenforceable because it was not domesticated in

Defendant’s home state of Texas. However, typically, a foreign corporation authorized to do

business in Georgia is considered a resident for purposes of service and jurisdiction. See Allstate

Ins. Co. v. Klein, 262 Ga. 599 (1992) (analyzing the terms resident and nonresident in the Long

Arm Statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-10-90, et seq. and the statutory effect of a certificate of authority in

O.C.G.A. § 14-2-1505). 4

As noted above, Defendant was registered to do business in Georgia and maintained a

registered agent in Fulton County at the time of service of the Subpoena and at the time that

compliance was required. Defendant was considered a Georgia resident at these critical times.

There is no legal requirement to domesticate a Subpoena directed to an entity with the same legal

footing as a Georgia resident. 5

Substance of Subpoena

Defendant moves for dismissal on the grounds that the Subpoena is overly broad, unduly

burdensome, and seeks documents more readily available from other Georgia governmental

4
The significant language in O.C.G.A. § 14-2-1505, applicable to foreign corporations, is the same as O.C.G.A. §
14-3-1505, applicable to nonprofit foreign corporations.
5
To the extent domestication of the Subpoena may have been required, the Court finds that Defendant’s actions
waived this issue. Defendant accepted service of the Subpoena, and Defendant sent its First Response to the Subpoena
without mention of or objection to lack of domestication.

Page 5 of 6
entities. Defendant also suggests that the requested information should not be produced because

of an ongoing action pending in the Northern District of Georgia.

Plaintiff has investigative duties and the authority to subpoena papers touching any

questions which may properly come before it. Refusal to comply with a subpoena shall be reported

to the appropriate superior court, which shall order compliance with the subpoena. O.C.G.A. § 21-

2-33. While this statute allows for a superior court to order compliance and sanction lack of

compliance with the court’s order, no language in this statute that grants a superior court discretion

to modify Plaintiff’s subpoenas. Moreover, to the extent that this Court has authority under

O.C.G.A. § 24-13-23 to quash or modify the Subpoena, such request must be made prior to the

time specified for compliance in the subpoena. Defendant’s objections were not timely. In fact,

most of Defendant’s objections were not even raised in their First Response. 6

In view of the above, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is denied.

Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff the records requested by the Subpoena no later than

twenty days from the entry of this Order.

Failure to comply with this Order is punishable by contempt.

20
SO ORDERED this _________day November
of _____________________, 2023.

____________________________________
RACHELLE L. CARNESALE, JUDGE
Fulton County Superior Court
Atlanta Judicial Circuit

Filed and served via eFileGA

6
It is also noted that objections to the production of documents on the grounds that responsive documents were
produced to a different entity or are also responsive to discovery request in a separate proceeding are not objections
which are supported by statutory or case law.

Page 6 of 6