Ford Motor Company appeals from the denial of its petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition in which Ford sought to have the Superior Court of Clarke County rule that a judge of the State Court of Clarke County had violated clear legal duties under Georgia law and had grossly abused his discretion. The state court judge had issued a discovery order requiring Ford to produce documents Ford contended were privileged under the attorney work-product doctrine because they had been prepared in anticipation of litigation and the statutory exception to that privilege had not been met. We affirm the superior court’s denial of extraordinary relief and reiterate the precept that mandamus is not a vehicle by which a party may obtain review of a judicial order which is subject to appellate review. The defendant in the mandamus action filed by Ford is Judge Kent Lawrence of the State Court of Clarke County. In a product liability action brought by intervenor Artumus Gibson, Jr., against Ford, Judge Lawrence conducted an in camera inspection of disputed documents and ordered Ford to give the plaintiffs crash test documents the judge acknowledged had been prepared in anticipation of litigation because the judge determined “the substantial equivalent of the documents can not be obtained by Plaintiffs without undue hardship, and the Plaintiffs have a substantial need for the documents. . . .” See OCGA § 9-11-26b3. After Judge Lawrence denied Ford’s motion for reconsideration and ordered Ford to produce the disputed discovery material, Ford filed in superior court its petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition. The superior court held a hearing at which plaintiff Gibson was permitted to intervene in the mandamus action. The superior court issued an order denying Ford’s application for extraordinary relief after finding “Judge Lawrence has neither violated any legal duties nor grossly abused his discretion. In fact, . . . Judge Lawrence has not abused his discretion whatsoever.” Ford filed a direct appeal to this Court from the denial of mandamus relief.1
Writs of mandamus and prohibition are extraordinary remedies available in limited circumstances to compel action or inaction on the part of a public officer when there is no other adequate legal remedy. Smith & Wesson v. City of Atlanta , 273 Ga. 431 1 543 SE2d 16 2001; Henderson v. McVay , 269 Ga. 7 1 494 SE2d 653 1998. Extraordinary writs are not the proper remedy to seek review of a ruling made by a trial court where there is a right of judicial review of the judge’s ruling, because the availability of judicial review is an adequate legal remedy that eliminates the availability of mandamus relief. Kappelmeier v. Iannazzone , __Ga.__ Case No. S05A0391, decided 3/7/05 mandamus not available to review judicial decision on motion to recuse judge because there is a right of judicial review; Smith & Wesson v. City of Atlanta , supra, 273 Ga. at 433 mandamus not available to review judicial denial of motion to dismiss case; White v. Lumpkin , 272 Ga. 398 529 SE2d 879 2000 mandamus not available to review judicial decision to deny recusal motion; Tamaroff v. Cowen , 270 Ga. 415 511 SE2d 159 1999 mandamus not available to review judicial decision to appoint permanent process servers; Banks v. Benham , 270 Ga. 91 510 SE2d 290 1998 mandamus not available to review judicial decision that issues were not properly raised for appellate review; Chandler v. Davis , 269 Ga. 727, 728 504 SE2d 440 1998 mandamus not available to review judicial decision not to recuse trial judge; Henderson v. McVay , supra, 269 Ga. at 8 mandamus not available to review judicial failure to probate will in common form; VanAlstine v. Roach , 265 Ga. 820, 821 461 SE2d 539 1995 mandamus not available to require judge to rule on post-conviction motions filed pro se by defendant represented by counsel; Barber Fertilizer v. Chason , 265 Ga. 497 458 SE2d 631 1995 mandamus not available to review judicial decision that judgment entered conformed to the jury verdict; Rossi v. Price , 237 Ga. 651, 652 229 SE2d 429 1976 mandamus not available to review judicial decision denying petition to vacate order committing juvenile to custody; Barksdale v. Cobb , 16 Ga. 13 1854 mandamus not available to review refusal of the Ordinary to grant letters of administration pendente lite. See also OCGA § 9-6-20 “The writ of mandamus may issue to compel a due performance, if there is no other specific legal remedy for the legal rights.
