Understanding the Motion to Compel Depositions in Maryland

“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).)

“One of the fundamental and principal objectives [of discovery] is to require the disclosure of facts by a party litigant to all of his adversaries . . . If all of the parties have knowledge of all of the relevant, pertinent and non-privileged facts, or the knowledge of the existence or whereabouts of such facts, the parties should be able to properly prepare their claims and defenses, thereby advancing the sound and expeditious administration of justice." (See Logan v. LSP Marketing Corp. (2010) 196 Md. App. 684, 698; Bait. Transit Co. v. Mezzanotti (1961) 227 Md. 8, 13, 174 A.2d 768; Blades v. Woods (1995) 107 Md. App. 178, 183.)

“Facts entirely within the knowledge of the opposing party may be especially appropriate for discovery.” (See Goldstein v. Peninsula Bank (1979) 41 Md. App. 224, 232, 396 A.2d 542; Blades v. Woods (1995) 107 Md. App. 178, 183.)

“Maryland Rule 2-402(a), dealing with the scope of discovery, provides that a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter not privileged, including the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, if the matter sought is relevant to the subject matter involved in the action." (See Dorsey v. Nold (2001) 362 Md. 241, 252.)

“That is a very broad provision, the intent being to eliminate, as far as possible, a party going to trial in a confused state concerning the facts that gave rise to the litigation.” (See id; Balto. Transit v. Mezzanotti (1961) 227 Md. 8, 13, 174 A.2d 768, 771; Kelch v. Mass. Transit Adm. (1980) 287 Md. 223, 229, 411 A.2d 449, 454.)

“It includes information that may already be known to or otherwise obtainable by the requesting party.” (See Dorsey v. Nold (2001) 362 Md. 241, 252.)

“Discovery may take the form of interrogatories, depositions, demands for the production of documents or other tangible things, inspection of land or other property, mental or physical examinations, and requests for the admission of facts and genuineness of documents.” (See id. Rule 2-401(a).)

“There is no hierarchy among these various methods. If the party learns the identity of a witness or the existence of a document in some other manner, there is no compulsion to file interrogatories before proceeding with a deposition or demand for production.” (See id.)

“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.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Compel Depositions under Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 2-411

“Maryland Rules explicitly provide that pretrial depositions are intended to function not only as a discovery mechanism, but also as a method of preserving relevant testimony.” (See Shives v. Furst (1987) 70 Md. App. 328, 336.)

“Any party to an action may cause the testimony of a person, whether or not a party, to be taken by deposition for the purpose of discovery or for use as evidence in the action or for both purposes.” (See Md. R. Civ. P. Cir. Ct. 2-411; Shives v. Furst (1987) 70 Md. App. 328, 336.)

“Leave of court must be obtained to take a deposition:

1. before the earliest day on which any defendant's initial pleading or motion is required;
2. that is longer than one seven-hour day;
3. of an individual confined in prison; or
4. of an individual who has previously been deposed in the same action unless further deposition is permitted under Rule 2-415(i) because substantive changes have been made to the deposition transcript.”

(See Md. R. Civ. P. Cir. Ct. 2-411.)

“Leave of court may be granted on such terms as the court prescribes.” (See id.)

“This broad characterization of the purposes for which parties may use depositions is echoed in Rule 2-419(a)(3), which states depositions may be used for any purpose.” (See Shives v. Furst (1987) 70 Md. App. 328, 336.)

Furthermore, “Rule 2-402(a) governs the scope of discovery, and it provides: a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, if the matter sought is relevant to the subject matter involved in the action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party.” (See Billman v. State Deposit Corp. (1991) 86 Md. App. 1, 10.)

“It is not ground for objection that the information sought is already known to or otherwise obtainable by the party seeking discovery or that the information will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See id.)

“An interrogatory or deposition question otherwise proper is not objectionable merely because the response involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact.” (See id.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Compel Depositions

“We review a trial court's decision on a discovery motion for abuse of discretion.” (See St. Frances Acad. v. Gilman Sch., No. 1390-2021, at *9 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Mar. 21, 2022); Md. Bd. of Physicians v. Geier (2017) 451 Md. 526, 543-44.)

“A trial court abuses its discretion where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the [trial] court, the court acts without reference to any guiding principles, and the ruling under consideration is clearly against the logic and effect of facts and inferences before the court, or the ruling is violative of fact and logic." (See id; Bacon v. Arey (2012) 203 Md.App. 606, 671; Beyond Sys., Inc. v. Realtime Gaming Holding Co, LLC (2005) 388 Md. 1, 28.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Compel Depositions

It is well settled that “a discovering party, upon reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected, may move for an order compelling discovery if . . . (2) a deponent fails to answer a question asked in oral or written deposition. . .” (See Coe v. Bass (1988) 74 Md. App. 346, 350.)

It is also well settled that “in a case where a party properly summoned for a deposition fails to appear for the deposition, or where a party fails to serve any response to interrogatories or a request for production of documents, the discovering party may immediately move for sanctions under Rules 2-432(a) and 2-433(a). However, where a deponent appears for the deposition but fails to answer one or more questions (on the basis of a privilege or for any other reason), or where a party serves a response to interrogatories or a request for production of documents but fails to answer one or more interrogatories or document requests, the discovering party must first file a motion to compel discovery and obtain an order compelling discovery under Rule 2-432(b) before a court may issue an order imposing a sanction under Rule 2-433(a).” (See Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Malone, Misc. AG 47-2020, at *40 (Md. Jan. 31, 2022); North River Ins. Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (1996) 343 Md. 34, 78-79; Union Memorial Hosp. v. Dorsey (1999) 125 Md.App. 275, 288-90.)

Current as of April 01, 2024 | Updated by Trellis Law Content Team

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information and is subject to change without notice.