Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories in Maryland

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories

“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 Further Responses to Interrogatories

“The civil discovery rules are to be utilized by one ‘party’ to request information from another ‘party.’” See Md. Rules 2–411 (depositions); 2–421(a) (interrogatories); 2–422(a) (requests for production of documents); 2–424(a) (requests for admissions).” (See In re White (2018) 458 Md. 60, 94 n.26.)

“Pursuant to the Maryland Rules, a party has 30 days to respond to interrogatories or a request for the production of documents. See 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).” (See Mudge v. Vermillion, No. 1928-2021, at *19 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 30, 2022).)

“Any party may serve written interrogatories directed to any other party. Unless the court orders otherwise, a party may serve one or more sets having a cumulative total of not more than 30 interrogatories to be answered by the same party.” (See Md. R. Civ. P. Cir. Ct. 2-421.)

“Interrogatories, however grouped, combined, or arranged and even though subsidiary or incidental to or dependent upon other interrogatories, shall be counted separately. Each form interrogatory contained in the Appendix to these Rules shall count as a single interrogatory.” (See id.)

“The response shall answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing under oath, or shall state fully the grounds for refusal to answer any interrogatory. The response shall set forth each interrogatory followed by its answer.” (See id.)

“An answer shall include all information available to the party directly or through agents, representatives, or attorneys. The response shall be signed by the party making it.” (See id.)

“[I]t is the obligation of parties to respond or, if they have a valid objection, to make the objection and to produce documents and to answer interrogatories.” (See A.A. v. AB.D. (2020) 246 Md. App. 418, 429.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories

“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 Further Responses to Interrogatories

It is well settled that “the Maryland Rules provide for discovery in litigation to facilitate the timely disposition of claims and to prevent any unfair surprise. To that end, [a]ny party may serve written interrogatories directed to any other party; serve one or more requests to any other party . . . [to] permit the party making the request, or someone acting on the party's behalf, to inspect, copy, test, or sample designated documents . . .; or serve one or more written requests to any other party for the admission of . . . the genuineness of any relevant documents or . . . the truth of any relevant matters of fact set forth in the request." (See Md. Rules 2-421, 2-422, 2-424; Ali v. Davis, No. 1483, at *26-27 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Sep. 7, 2016).)

It is also well settled that “pursuant to Rule 2-421(b), the party to whom interrogatories are directed shall serve a response within 30 days after service of the interrogatories or within 15 days after the date on which that party's initial pleading or motion is required, whichever is later. Rule 2-422(c) also provides the same deadlines for responses to requests for production or inspection of documents, electronically stored information and property. Where a party fails to comply with the response requirements for interrogatories and requests for production, Rule 2-432(a) permits the discovering party to move for sanctions without first filing a motion to compel discovery.” (See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Rheinstein (2020) 466 Md. 648, 676.)