Factors to Consider in Maryland That Guide the Discovery Sanctions Decision

“The following factors, originally set forth in Taliaferro v. State, 295 Md. 376, 390–91 (1983), guide a trial court’s decision of whether to impose sanctions for a discovery violation:

(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 respectively offering and opposing the evidence; and (5) whether any resulting prejudice might be cured by a postponement and, if so, the overall desirability of a continuance.

Richardson v. Howard County, 2025 WL 2525589, at *6 (Appl. Ct. Md. Sep. 2, 2025)(unreported).

The Richardson Court stated that this analysis did not require a “checklist.”  Instead, a court should look to the “entire history and context of the case” in determining whether sanctions are appropriate.” Id. (citation omitted).  Further: “Maryland law is well settled that a trial court has broad discretion to fashion a remedy based on a party’s failure to abide by the rules of discovery.”  Id.

Howard County sued Ms. Richardson, individually and as trustee, alleging violations of a moderate income housing statute.

Based on failures to provide discovery, the County moved for sanctions against her individually.  The circuit court held a hearing and entered a default judgment ordering that the property be sold back to the County.  Ms. Richardson appealed.

While the appeal was pending, Ms. Richardson, in her capacity as trustee, failed to respond to the second amended complaint.  Upon motion, the same relief was granted. Ms. Richardson as trustee appealed again.

The appeals were consolidated. In Richardson, there were repeated discovery violations, violation of a Court order to produce documents, failure to provide “very basic” information in answers to interrogatories, and failure to appear at a properly noted deposition. Id. at *7.

Further “Ms. Richardson did not correct the discovery violations. Indeed, on the date of the hearing, the court found that Ms. Richardson’s deposition had not been taken despite Howard County’s efforts, that she had produced no documents despite Howard County’s requests, and that the discovery deadline had expired.”  Id.

Additionally, Ms. Richardson did not “document” her excuses.  And, the circuit court found her reason for not appearing at deposition to be not credible. Id.

As it was allowed to do, the court assigned little weight to her unsupported explanation for the failure to engage in the discovery process.

Id. (cleaned up).  Thirty minutes before the deposition, “Ms. Richardson e-mailed counsel for Howard County stating that she was ‘at the medical facility now’ and suggested that the deposition be rescheduled for December 2, 2022.”  Id. at *4.

[C]ounsel for Ms. Richardson asserted that Ms. Richardson had documents demonstrating that she had a chest x-ray completed on the date of the deposition. Counsel for Howard County responded that it had not “received a single medical note” regarding Ms. Richardson’s failure to appear at the deposition. In any event, the court was not persuaded that the documents indicated “an excuse to not attend a deposition that had been noted…”

Id.

Also, there was prejudice because the County did not have the opportunity to hear Ms. Richardson’s defenses.

Further, the court found that Ms. Richardson had several opportunities to prevent the prejudice, including that she “[c]ould have gotten a doctor’s note, [and] could have filed a [m]otion for

rotective [o]rder[,]” but that she “[f]ailed to do either of those things” and instead, filed a motion to postpone “at the eleventh hour[.]” … She also could have responded to other discovery requests besides the deposition, but she failed to even produce all the documents requested of her or answer the interrogatories posed.

Id. at *7.

“Finally, the court was not persuaded that postponement would cure any prejudice, noting that Ms. Richardson already had several opportunities to comply with discovery, and failed to…. [do so].” Id. at *8.

While courts “prefer cases to be resolved on merits,” egregious misconduct, such as willful or contemptuous behavior, is not required for imposition of sanctions. Id.

The ultimate sanction may also be imposed for a deliberate attempt to hinder or prevent effective presentation of defenses or counterclaims, or for stalling in revealing one’s own weak claim or defense…. And it may be imposed even when there were less stringent sanctions available.

Id.  at *8 (cleaned up).

In Richardson, the court found a pattern of obstruction that deprived the County “of all information necessary to litigate the case….” Id. at *8.

The sanction was default.  The Court wrote that “we cannot say that the default judgment, or the relief awarded therein, was an abuse of discretion.” Id. at *9. Based on procedural grounds, the Court declined to consider arguments that the award of attorneys’ fees was an abuse of discretion.[1]

____

[1] This is an unreported opinion. This opinion may not be cited as precedent within the rule of stare decisis. It may be cited for its persuasive value only if the citation conforms to Rule 1-104(a)(2)(B).