After Danielle Bowden was injured in a car wreck, The Medical Center billed her $21,409.59 and filed a hospital lien for that amount. Bowden challenged the lien as unreasonable and sought discovery about what the hospital charged insured and uninsured patients for comparable care. The trial court compelled production subject to a protective order, but the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that the requested information was not relevant. The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. It held that when a hospital lien’s validity and amount depend on the “reasonable charges” for care, information about what the same hospital charged other patients for the same type of treatment during the same period is relevant in the broad discovery sense. Such information might show that the billed amount exceeded reasonable value, even though differences in insurance contracts, payment certainty, volume discounts, and government reimbursement could affect its usefulness. The Court emphasized that discovery relevance is broader than trial admissibility and that the requested information need not be dispositive. It also rejected the idea that a treatment-payment contract automatically establishes reasonable charges, and noted that Bowden’s contractual and unjust-enrichment allegations had not been resolved. The Court expressed no opinion on the ultimate validity of the lien or admissibility of particular evidence and remanded for discovery to proceed, subject to other objections and protective-order issues.