If You Don’t Ask the Right Question, You Won’t Get the Answer

In Sullivan v. Wyatt, 2023 WL 1812733 (Appl. Ct. Md. Feb. 7, 2023)(unreported), the Court affirmed an award of damages to plaintiff (“Rebecca”), daughter of the decedent, due to the exertion of undue influence by the second wife of the decedent (“Joan”).

After a five-day trial, the jury awarded Rebecca, the daughter, $127,528.00.  While not the focus of this blog, it is interesting that some of the evidence of the undue influence came from graphic text messages.  Id. at*2 n. 5.

In Sullivan, the appellant (Joan) was unsuccessful on a discovery issue because she had not asked the right question in discovery.  The Court pointed out that the right question was found in a standard form interrogatory.  But it was not propounded by Joan.  And, the Court wrote that Rebecca had no duty to volunteer information that Joan had not requested.

Among many issues on appeal, Joan “argues that the trial court erred ‘in allowing substantial damage claims not previously disclosed in discovery that were highly prejudicial to [her] trial preparation and defense.’”

The Appellate Court wrote that: “In seeking to exclude certain claims for damages, the Motion in Limine was, in substance, a motion for [discovery] sanctions pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-433….  The crux of Joan’s objection to the disputed claims was that Rebecca did not supplement her responses to discovery by identifying those additional claims for damages.”

However, the Appellate Court wrote that Joan had failed to ask the right questions in discovery.  It stated that she could have used a standard form discovery request, but failed to do so.  And, it stated that Rebecca had no duty to volunteer information:

The problem for Joan, however, is that her discovery requests did not include one for itemizing damages claimed by Rebecca, a standard form discovery request. See Md. Rules Form No. 3 (General Interrogatories) (“Itemize and show how you calculate any economic damages claimed by you in this action, and describe any non-economic damages claimed. (Standard General Interrogatory No. 4)”). Instead, Joan propounded requests broadly seeking documents that “support[ed] [Rebecca’s] contention that [Joan] ever defrauded [Everett],” that Rebecca “intended to introduce at trial” and that she intended to rely on to support “a position … taken or … intend[ed] to take in the action, including any claim for damages.”

We have advised that “[a] party seeking discovery may not expect his opponent to construe discovery requests as broadly as possible, in essence, to volunteer information beyond the request, on pain of preclusion of evidence at trial as a discovery sanction.” … Accordingly, to the extent that the trial court effectively denied the Motion in Limine, we perceive no abuse of discretion.

Id. at *15 (Emphasis added; citations omitted).

In dicta, the Court added:

Even if Joan’s discovery requests encompassed the itemization of claims for damages, we would reach the same conclusion. The “more draconian sanctions, of dismissing a claim or precluding the evidence necessary to support a claim, are normally reserved for persistent and deliberate violations that actually cause some prejudice, either to a party or to the court.” … The circumstances here do not demonstrate that the late disclosure was a result of persistent or deliberate violations that actually caused prejudice to Joan.

Id. (citations omitted).

The Maryland Rules and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland both include “safe harbor” pattern discovery requests.