Ultimate Sanction Imposed for Discovery Violations

In Harrison v. The Johns Hopkins Hospital, et al., 2025 WL 999617 (Appl. Ct. Md. Apr. 3, 2025) (per curiam), the intermediate appellate court affirmed a dismissal with prejudice in consolidated cases due to discovery violations.

Defendants’ motion to compel discovery was granted on March 28, 2024.  Plaintiff was ordered to appear at a deposition, produce “full and complete” discovery responses within ten days, and warned that a failure to comply may result in sanctions.

“While the motion to compel was pending, the appellant failed to appear at a second deposition and the appellees filed a motion for sanctions on March 27, 2024, later amended on April 25, 2024, to request the ultimate sanction of dismissal for the appellant’s failure to comply with the order compelling discovery.”  Id. at *1.

At a June 2024 hearing on the second motion:  “The appellant stated on the record that she did not provide the discovery she had been compelled to produce, choosing instead to ‘fil[e] something stating that [she] could not do that without legal counsel.’”  She claimed that she had been “unable” to find an attorney.  The trial court dismissed the case, and this appeal followed.

The Appellate Court noted that Maryland Rule 2-433 confers broad discretion to impose sanctions for a failure of discovery or violation of a court order.  However, the “ultimate sanction” of dismissal is limited to cases of egregious misconduct.  Id. at *2.

In considering whether, and to what extent, sanctions are appropriate, a trial court should consider: (1) whether the disclosure violation was technical or substantial; (2) the timing of the ultimate disclosure; (3) the reason, if any, for the violation; (4) the degree of prejudice to the parties … ; and (5) whether any resulting prejudice might be cured by a postponement.

Id. (cleaned up; citation omitted).

The per curiam court stated:

Here, the appellant was ordered to produce discovery, did not do so, and admitted to the failure to provide discovery as ordered on the record. The appellant’s case had been pending for over a year by the time the hearing was held in June of 2024, with a trial date that had been set for August. Referencing the appropriate factors, the trial judge found that “the disclosure violation is substantial[,]” that “there has been no ultimate disclosure,” that the appellant’s failure to hire an attorney did not excuse her failure to provide the ordered discovery, and that the prejudice to the defense was “great” and “cannot even be cured by a postponement.” Consequently, given the trial court’s reasoned and logical ruling which referenced the guiding standard for the imposition of sanctions, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the ultimate sanction was warranted.

Id.

Harrison is an unreported, per curiam decision.  Under Maryland Rule 1-104, it cannot be cited as precedent or persuasive.  For a discussion of that Rule, please see Elimination of Judicial Disappearing Ink in Maryland (May 6, 2023).