Motion for Discovery Sanctions in Maryland

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Discovery Sanctions

“Maryland's discovery rules, governed by Chapter 400 of Title 2 of the Maryland Rules, were deliberately designed to be broad and comprehensive in scope." (See Ehrlich v. Grove (2007) 396 Md. 550, 560, 914 A.2d 783; Saint Luke Inst., Inc. v. Jones (2020) 471 Md. 312, 332-33.)

“The Maryland Rules concerning discovery, motions to compel, and protective orders work together to grant a trial court great flexibility in controlling discovery. Rule 2-402(a) provides, generally, that any relevant, non-privileged document is discoverable.” (See St. Frances Acad. v. Gilman Sch., No. 1390-2021, at *10 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Mar. 21, 2022).)

“As we have stated on numerous occasions, Maryland's discovery rules are to be liberally construed.” (See Saint Luke Inst., Inc. v. Jones (2020) 471 Md. 312, 333.)

As such, if they are not followed, “on motion, the court may impose sanctions against a person who fails to obey an order compelling discovery.” (See Md. Bd. of Physicians v. Geier (2019) 241 Md. App. 429, 538; Md. Rule 2-433(c).)

“On a motion for immediate sanctions, the court, if it finds a failure of discovery, may enter such orders in regard to the failure as are just, including orders imposing one or more specified sanctions.” (See Md. Bd. of Physicians v. Geier (2019) 241 Md. App. 429, 537-38; Md. Rule 2-433(a).)

“For other discovery failures (such as an inadequate response to a question asked in a deposition, to an interrogatory, or to a request for production), the discovering party must move for and obtain an order compelling discovery under Rule 2-432(b) before seeking any sanctions.” (See Md. Bd. of Physicians v. Geier (2019) 241 Md. App. 429, 537-38; Butler v. S & S P'ship (2013) 435 Md. 635, 657-58, 80 A.3d 298.)

“The most severe sanction to impose for a defendant's discovery failure is an order entering a judgment by default that includes a determination as to liability and all relief sought by the moving party against the failing party [.]" (See id; Md. Rule 2-433(a)(3).)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion for Discovery Sanctions

“Maryland's discovery rules permit a discovering party to move for immediate sanctions based on certain total failures of discovery, such as the failure to appear for a deposition or the failure to serve a response to interrogatories or to a request for production.”  (See Md. Bd. of Physicians v. Geier (2019) 241 Md. App. 429, 537-38; Md. Rule 2-432(a).)

“In the case of a party directed to produce documents, Md. Rule 2-432(b) requires an order of court for the production of documents before sanctions for failure by a party to make discovery may be imposed.” (See Bagwell v. Bagwell, No. 0515-2021, at *14 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Mar. 25, 2022).)

“Pursuant to the Maryland Rules, a party has 30 days to respond to interrogatories or a request for the production of documents.” (See Mudge v. Vermillion, No. 1928-2021, at *19 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 30, 2022); see also Md. Rule 2-421(b) [stating that a party shall have 30 days after service of the interrogatories to respond] and Md. Rule 2-422(c) [stating that a party shall have 30 days after service of the request for documents to respond].)

“A trial court may impose sanctions if a party fails to comply with a discovery request in two ways.” (See Mudge v. Vermillion, No. 1928-2021, at *19 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 30, 2022).)

“First, on the motion of a discovering party, the trial court may impose immediate sanctions if it finds a ‘failure of discovery.’" (See id; Md. Rule 2-433(a).)

Specifically, Rule 2-433(a) states that “upon a motion filed under Rule 2-432(a), the court, if it finds a failure of discovery, may enter such orders in regard to the failure as are just, including one or more of the following:

1. An order that the matters sought to be discovered, or any other designated facts shall be taken to be established for the purpose of the action in accordance with the claim of the party obtaining the order;
2. An order refusing to allow the failing party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting that party from introducing designated matters in evidence; or
3. An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceeding until the discovery is provided, or dismissing the action or any part thereof, or entering a judgment by default that includes a determination as to liability and all relief sought by the moving party against the failing party if the court is satisfied that it has personal jurisdiction over that party…”

(See Md. R. Civ. P. Cir. Ct. 2-433)

“A ‘failure of discovery’ occurs when a party, among other things, fails to serve a response to interrogatories under Rule 2-421 or to a request for production or inspection under Rule 2-422, after proper service." (See Mudge v. Vermillion, No. 1928-2021, at *19 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 30, 2022); Md. Rule 2-432(a).)

“Second, when a party fails to obey an order compelling discovery, the trial court may impose further sanctions under Rule 2-433(c). (See id; Md. Rule 2-433(c).)

Rule 2-433(c) states that “if a person fails to obey an order compelling discovery, the court, upon motion of a party and reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected, may enter such orders in regard to the failure as are just, including one or more of the orders set forth in section (a) of this Rule. If justice cannot otherwise be achieved, the court may enter an order in compliance with Rule15-206 treating the failure to obey the order as a contempt.” (See Md. R. Civ. P. Cir. Ct. 2-433(c).)

To summarize, “if the court grants the motion to compel, the court must issue an order compelling discovery. If a party fails to obey an order compelling discovery, the discovering party may move for sanctions.” (See Fisher v. McCrary (2009) 186 Md. App. 86, 123; Karl v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Maryland, Inc. (1994) 100 Md.App. 743, 745-48, 642 A.2d 903.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Discovery Sanctions

“This Court has recognized that a trial court has ‘wide discretion’ in imposing discovery sanctions.” (See Villarreal v. Villarreal, No. 1042, at *24 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 19, 2016).)

"[E]ven if . . . the precise action taken by the circuit court is not specifically prescribed by a rule or statute, the court has the ability, in general, to definitively and effectively administer and control discovery, as the Maryland Rules contemplate." (See Mudge v. Vermillion, No. 1928-2021, at *19-20 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 30, 2022); Gallagher Evelius & Jones, LLP v. Joppa Drive-Thru, Inc. (2010) 195 Md.App. 583, 596.)

“Courts have broad discretion to fashion remedies for discovery failures and appellate review correspondingly is quite narrow." (See id; Rodriguez v. Clarke (2007) 400 Md. 39, 56; Sindler v. Litman (2005) 166 Md.App. 90, 123; Faith v. Keefer (1999) 127 Md.App. 706, 732, cert. denied, 357 Md. 191.)

“In exercising that discretion, a trial court should consider several factors, enunciated in Taliaferro v. State: whether the disclosure violation was technical or substantial, the timing of the ultimate disclosure, the reason, if any, for the violation, the degree of prejudice to the parties respectively offering and opposing the evidence, whether any resulting prejudice might be cured by a postponement and, if so, the overall desirability of a continuance.” (See Mudge v. Vermillion, No. 1928-2021, at *19-20 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 30, 2022); Taliaferro v. State (1983) 295 Md. 376, 390-91 n.15.)

“The circuit court need not discuss each of the factors, which are interrelated and often overlap.” (See id; Muffoletto v. Towers (2020) 244 Md.App. 510, 542, cert.denied, 469 Md. 276.)

“It follows that [w]e do not look at each incident in isolation, but rather at the entire history and context of the case[.]" (See Mudge v. Vermillion, No. 1928-2021, at *19-20 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 30, 2022; Valentine-Bowers v. Retina Grp., Of Wash., P.C. (2014) 217 Md.App. 366, 380.)

"The purpose of discovery is to eliminate, as far as possible, the necessity of any party to litigation going to trial in a confused or muddled state of mind, concerning the facts that gave rise to the litigation." (See Mudge v. Vermillion, No. 1928-2021, at *19-20 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 30, 2022); Warehime v. Dell (1998) 124 Md.App. 31, 48.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Discovery Sanctions

It is well settled that “ultimately, discovery sanctions are not to operate as a windfall, but instead are intended to relieve the surprise or prejudice a party suffers when his opponent fails to abide by the discovery rules." (See Mudge v. Vermillion, No. 1928-2021, at *19-20 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 30, 2022); Watson v. Timberlake (2021) 251 Md.App. 420, 437.)

It is also well settled that "the most accepted view of discovery sanctions is that in fashioning a sanction, the court should impose the least severe sanction that is consistent with the purpose of the discovery rules." (See Mudge v. Vermillion, No. 1928-2021, at *19-20 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 30, 2022); Thomas v. State (2007) 397 Md. 557, 571 (2007).)