Understanding the Significance of a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

“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 Discovery Responses

“A discovering party may move for an order compelling discovery if there is a failure of discovery or if a party provides discovery but fails to respond to one or more discovery requests, as enunciated in Md. Rule 2-432(b).” (See Fisher v. McCrary (2009) 186 Md. App. 86, 123.)

“Pursuant to Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 3-421(g), within five days after service of the response, the discovering party may file a motion for an order compelling discovery.” (See Md. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 3-421(g).)

“The motion shall set forth the interrogatory, any answer or objection, and the reasons why discovery should be compelled.” (See id.)

“Promptly after the time for a response has expired, the court shall decide the motion.” (See id.)

Additionally, pursuant to Rule 2-432 Motions Upon Failure to Provide Discovery: “a discovering party, upon reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected, may move for an order compelling discovery if:

1. there is a failure of discovery as described in section (a) of this Rule,
2. a deponent fails to answer a question asked in an oral or written deposition,
3. a corporation or other entity fails to make a designation under Rule 2-412(d),
4. a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 2-421,
5. a party fails to comply with a request for production or inspection under Rule 2-422,
6. a party fails to supplement a response under Rule 2-401(d), or
7. a nonparty deponent fails to produce tangible evidence without having filed written objection under Rule 2-510(f).”

(See Md. R. Civ. P. Cir. Ct. 2-432.)

“A motion for an order compelling discovery shall set forth: the question, interrogatory, or request; and the answer or objection; and the reasons why discovery should be compelled.” (See id.)

“Instead of setting forth the questions and the answers or objections from a deposition, the relevant part of the transcript may be attached to the motion. The motion need not set forth the set of interrogatories or requests when no response has been served.” (See id.)

“If the court denies the motion in whole or in part, it may enter any protective order it could have entered on a motion pursuant to Rule 2-403. For purposes of this section, an evasive or incomplete answer is to be treated as a failure to answer.” (See id.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses

“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 St. Frances Acad. v. Gilman Sch., No. 1390-2021, at *9 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Mar. 21, 2022; 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 Discovery Responses

It is well settled that “the discovery rules are broad in scope and are construed liberally to accomplish their purpose.” (See Porter Hayden v. Bullinger (1998) 350 Md. 452, 460.)

It is also well settled that “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. If either party wants a hearing on a motion for sanctions, the party must request the hearing in accordance with Rule 2-311(f).” (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.)

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.