Kelly Lee Ellerbe
How Judge Ellerbe rules, drawn from 24 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Ellerbe
Kelly Lee Ellerbe has served as a Fulton County Superior Court judge in Georgia since 2011 and has presided over Metro Atlanta Business Case Division matters since 2019. Before joining the bench, she practiced civil litigation in Atlanta. She earned her undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Georgia.
Judge Ellerbe's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Ellerbe, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Criminal Case Management Order (rev. 6/2026) ↗
- Civil Case Management Order (rev. 6/2026) ↗
- Use of Artificial Intelligence Order (rev. 6/2026) ↗
- Adoption/Parentage Case Management Order (6/2026) ↗
- FORM: Business Court Case Management Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
In a Business Case Division case using Ellerbe’s case-management order, parties should send paper courtesy copies of pleadings over 50 pages and email courtesy copies of other motions, requests, and briefs.
“Parties should deliver or mail paper courtesy copies of any pleading over fifty (50) pages in length including exhibits to: Susan L. Shaver, Metro Atlanta Business Case Division, 136 Pryor Street, Suite C-956, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Otherwise, please send a courtesy copy of all motions, requests, and briefs via email to [email protected].”
Filing
Under her Business Case Division template, proposed orders go to the division contact by email and are not filed with the clerk.
“Accordingly, when a party desires or is directed to present a proposed order to the Court, it should be submitted to Ms. Shaver at the aforementioned email address and not filed with the Clerk.”
Filing
Anyone who uses AI to prepare, draft, or review a written submission in Ellerbe’s civil or criminal docket must disclose its use with the specified certification.
“Any attorney or pro-se party who uses AI in any capacity to prepare, draft, or review a filing or submission to the Court shall disclose such use in the document with the following certification:”
Filing
In Ellerbe’s nonbusiness civil cases, proposed orders should be emailed in Word format with the filed motion, not electronically filed.
“Proposed orders should not be e-filed. Proposed orders may be emailed to the Staff Attorney (in WORD format) with attached copy of the filed motion to which the proposed order pertains.”
Filing
For adoption or parentage matters in Ellerbe’s division, counsel must email the proposed final order to the staff attorney in Word format before the hearing.
“Prior to the hearing, counsel shall email a proposed final order to the Staff Attorney in Word format.”
Motions
In cases using her Business Case Division order, supporting and response briefs are limited to 30 pages without prior permission.
“Absent prior permission, briefs filed in support of or in response to a motion are limited in length to thirty (30) pages (excluding exhibits).”
Motions
In cases using her Business Case Division order, a reply brief is due 30 days after the response brief.
“Any reply briefs are due thirty (30) days after response briefs.”
Motions
In Ellerbe’s nonbusiness civil cases, briefs and response briefs are limited to 25 pages, excluding exhibits, unless the court gives written permission.
“Except upon written permission of the Court, briefs and responsive briefs shall be limited to twenty-five (25) pages in length, excluding exhibits, double spaced with a size twelve (12) or larger font.”
Motions
For criminal cases in Ellerbe’s division, a bond motion must be filed at least 48 hours before arraignment to be heard at that hearing.
“Motions for bond will not be heard at arraignment unless filed at least 48 hours prior to the arraignment date.”
Discovery
Under her Business Case Division template, counsel must confer over a discovery dispute, then email the court a short summary and proposed way to address any unresolved issue.
“If a discovery dispute remains following the foregoing good faith conferral, the parties/counsel shall notify the Court via email including a short summary of the dispute and a proposed method for addressing the dispute (e.g., conference call, letter briefs, formal motion, etc.).”
Discovery
In Ellerbe’s nonbusiness civil cases, a discovery-dispute motion must be filed within 60 days of the response or event and no later than discovery’s close, absent a court order.
“Any motion seeking resolution of a discovery dispute shall be filed within sixty (60) days from the date of the response or event (e.g. deposition) that is the subject of the motion, and in no event later than the close of discovery absent Court Order.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
How Judge Ellerbe decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a duty-to-disclose/fraud-by-omission theory against a vendor with sensitive system access, she treats whether the circumstances gave rise to a duty to disclose risky practices as a fact question for the jury, not one resolvable on a motion to dismiss: letting most of a fraud claim past the pleading stage even while trimming its outer edges.
“The Court finds these allegations require factual inquiry and are not susceptible to disposition on the pleadings... whether the particular circumstances of a case give rise to an obligation to disclose will generally be a jury question.”
In approving a fiduciary's proposed settlement, she gives significant weight to whether the beneficiaries or claimants most familiar with the dispute have raised any objection, treating a lack of opposition as a real factor supporting approval even in a complicated multi-forum dispute.
“The fact that those most closely familiar with the underlying businesses and circumstances have posed no objection to the Settlement Agreement is a key factor supporting the Court's decision to approve the Settlement Agreement.”
On a motion for leave to amend a complaint late in a case, she follows Georgia's liberal amendment standard and focuses on whether the opposing side would truly be prejudiced by the new theory and whether a trial date has already been set, rather than treating a late amendment as presumptively improper.
“any potential prejudice is minimized as this matter has yet to receive trial setting. Finally, the Court finds permitting this amendment is consistent with the directive of O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-15(a) that provides leave to file pleading amendments after the entry of a pre-trial order 'shall be freely given'”
Procedural preferences
In Glover v. Georgia Mining Ventures, Ellerbe granted a motion to compel after finding that the GMV defendants' interrogatory responses failed to specify the business records from which answers could be derived, as Georgia's Civil Practice Act required.
“GMV Defendants failed to 'specify the records from which the answer may be derived or ascertained' in making such reference as required under the Civil Practice Act.”
A protective order requesting shelter from discovery, including into a party's own finances, requires the movant to clearly demonstrate good cause in the factual record; conclusory assertions are not enough, even where the requesting party already faces a default-judgment sanction.
“Good cause which needs to be shown for a protective order must be clearly demonstrated in the factual record and 'is not established by stereotyped or conclusional statements, bereft of facts.'”
In Glover v. Georgia Mining Ventures, Ellerbe granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to exclude expert S. Gregory Hays's testimony. In considering the challenged testimony, she cited the principle that exclusion under Rule 403 should be used sparingly.
“the exclusion of evidence under Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy which should be used only sparingly.”
In Galaxy Next Generation v. Ehlert, Ellerbe addressed the challenged discovery conduct under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-37(b) and denied Ehlert's requests for sanctions under the other provisions he invoked. Her order made case-specific findings about Galaxy's noncompliance with an earlier discovery order.
“The Court finds that the conduct at issue is more directly and completely addressed under O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-37(b). Accordingly, the Court denies Ehlert's requests to issue sanctions under O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-56(g), Section 8.D of the First Amended Case Management Order, or O.C.G.A. Section 9-15-14.”
Cautions
In reviewing a proposed derivative-lawsuit settlement, she independently scrutinizes the good faith and reasonableness of the APPROVAL PROCESS itself, not merely whether a settlement agreement is a valid contract or looks fair on its face: a settling party's failure to give the derivative plaintiff a meaningful chance to be heard by the approving body is treated as strong evidence the process was not independent or reasonable, and can result in a hard denial with no further chances to re-file.
“This Court has misgivings about the outsized role this small percentage of Rainforest shareholders played in the approval process... the failure to provide the Plaintiff with a meaningful opportunity to present his claim to the body charged with evaluating the Settlement Agreement suggests the investigation was not independently or reasonably conducted.”
She has denied requests to retroactively excuse missed discovery deadlines, holding that a court's discretion to enlarge time under O.C.G.A. 9-11-6(b) is judicial, not unrestrained, and that unauthenticated informal correspondence does not substitute for a proper factual showing.
“[W]hile O.C.G.A. Section 9-11-6(b) gives the trial court wide discretionary authority to enlarge the time within which an act may be done, the discretion to be exercised is a judicial discretion, not an unrestrained one.”
In Glover v. Georgia Mining Ventures, Ellerbe awarded the plaintiffs $19,575 in attorney fees against Railroad Valley Mining. She reviewed invoices line by line and deducted time during the summary-judgment phase that could have related to other claims.
“The Court arrived at the award figure by, in part, a line-by-line review of Plaintiffs' fee invoices with the Court deducting any fees incurred during the summary judgment phase which were arguably attributable to the time spent on dispositive motions on other claims.”
In Galaxy Next Gen v. Ehlert, she denied Galaxy's request to claw back a produced email after it offered an attorney letter without an affidavit verifying the factual basis for its privilege claim.
“affidavit verifying the factual assertions it makes in its letter brief.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“MORRIS HARDWICK SCHNEIDER, LLC ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT DIVOT HOLDINGS, LLC'S ANSWER (order's own title, naming the disposition)”
“Nancy Johnson et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL (order's own title, naming the disposition)”
“Having considered the entire record and given all of the above, Defendants' Motion for Protective Order is DENIED. Defendants are ORDERED to respond to Interrogatory No. 3 as narrowed above and otherwise shall respond fully to Plaintiffs' RPDs and Plaintiffs' Interrogatories, all within ten (10) days of this order.”
“Given all of the above, the Court finds it lacks jurisdiction to consider the Motion or to grant the relief requested therein. Accordingly, the Motion is hereby DENIED.”
“it is hereby ordered and adjudged that the Motion is DENIED.”
“J.P. Carey Enterprises ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CUENTAS'S MOTION TO STRIKE (order's own title, naming the disposition)”
“GREENLIFE ENERGY SOLUTIONS ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PATTERSON'S THIRD AFFIDAVIT (order's own title, naming the disposition)”
“GREENLIFE ENERGY SOLUTIONS ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT... (order's own title, naming the disposition)”
“...AND ORDER FINDING MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WITNESS (order's own title, naming the disposition)”
“[Motion for Abatement, Dismissal of Complaint and Restructuring of Pending Claims] is GRANTED, IN PART as follows: a. The Ehlert Action is DISMISSED as to Galaxy.”
“GMV Defendants are ORDERED to, within 14 days from this order, respond fully to Interrogatories No. 11, 14-16, 19-21, 25-27, 31...”
“In light of the foregoing, Petitioner's Motion is GRANTED IN PART. It is hereby ORDERED that the Successor Trustee, is authorized to enter into and execute the Settlement Agreement... It is further ORDERED that the remainder of the Successor Trustee's Motion seeking court approval for her resignation and release from liability for all her acts as Successor Trustee be DEFERRED.”
“In light of all the foregoing, the Defendants' Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement is DENIED. The Court specially sets the trial of this matter for September 16, 2024... the Court will not consider any additional motions seeking Court approval to settle Plaintiff's derivative claims pursuant to O.C.G.A. 14-2-745.”
Draft for Judge Ellerbe with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ellerbe, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ellerbe's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace