Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Maryland

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Compel Production of Documents

“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 Production of Documents

“Maryland Rule 2-422(a) permits a party to request documents that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party upon whom the request is served[.]" (See Stoltz v. Clark, No. 285-2021, at *1 n.11 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 27, 2021).)

“Under this Rule, control is not synonymous with possession, but refers to the right, authority, or ability to obtain upon demand.” (See id; Pleasant v. Pleasant (1993) 97 Md.App. 711, 732; Scott v. Arex, Inc. (1989) 124 F.R.D. 39, 41.)

"Where documents are within the control of the party upon whom a request for production of documents has been made, that party must obtain and produce those documents." (See Stoltz v. Clark, No. 285-2021, at *1 n.11 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 27, 2021); Pleasant v. Pleasant (1993) 97 Md.App. 711, 732.) "To hold otherwise would be to permit circumvention of the discovery process and create unnecessary expense." (See id.)

Specifically, pursuant to Rule 2-422(a) “any party may serve one or more requests to any other party (1) as to items that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party upon whom the request is served, to produce and permit the party making the request, or someone acting on the party's behalf, to inspect, copy, test or sample designated documents or electronically stored information (including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations stored in any medium from which information can be obtained, translated, if necessary, by the respondent through detection devices into reasonably usable form) or to inspect and copy, test, or sample any designated tangible things which constitute or contain matters within the scope of Rule 2-402(a)…” (See Md. R. Civ. P. Cir. Ct. 2-422.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Compel Production of Documents

“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; Sys., Inc. v. Realtime Gaming Holding Co, LLC (2005) 388 Md. 1, 28.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Compel Production of Documents

It is well settled that “when under an appropriate Maryland Rule, a party demands of another discovery of a document or other tangible thing, the adversary, even though resisting the demand, should nonetheless be required to specifically answer whether it has in its possession or under its control such an item or items.” (See Md. Bd. of Physicians v. Geier (2017) 451 Md. 526, 572; Kelch v. Mass Transit Admin. (1980) 287 Md. 223, 228, 411 A.2d 449.)

It is also well settled that “under Maryland Rule 2–432, [a] discovering party may move for sanctions under Rule 2–433(a), without first obtaining an order compelling discovery for certain complete failures to comply with discovery. Rule 2–432(b), on the other hand, calls for first moving for an order to compel discovery, if, among other failures, a party fails to comply with a request for production or inspection under Rule 2–422.” (See Bord v. Balt. Cnty. (2014) 220 Md. App. 529, 569.)