Baltimore Transit Co. v. Mezzanotti, 227 Md. 8 (1961)
In this Maryland personal injury accident case, Plaintiff alleged defendant's negligence when the Plaintiff attempted to board one of its buses in Baltimore City. Plaintiff served interrogatories which included the final four interrogatories.
(a) State the names and addresses of all persons who investigated plaintiff's injuries and damages for you.
(b) Give a concise statement of the facts as to how you contend the occurrence took place.
(c) If you contend that the plaintiff acted in such a manner as to cause or contribute to the occurrence, give a concise statement of the facts upon which you rely.
(d) If you contend that a person not a party to this action acted in such a manner as to cause or contribute to the occurrence, give a concise statement of the facts upon which you rely.
The Baltimore Transit Company's attorney for refused to answer these four interrogatories. This is not uncommon; this Defendant, like many defendants made frivolous objections. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel and the trial ordered the defendant to answer. This is where things get strange. The Baltimore Transit Company's attorney ignored the Baltimore City Circuit Court judge's order and still refused to answer the interrogatories. The judge entered a default motion in favor of the Plaintiff. The Baltimore Transit Company's attorney then took the deposition of the plaintiff, who refused, upon the advice of his personal injury lawyer, to answer questions concerning the happening of the accident, since the default judgment had already been entered in Plaintiff's favor.
The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, ruling that Maryland Rule 422(c), as does Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, empowers a Maryland trial court to enter a judgment by default against a party if its attorney refuses to answer interrogatories. The court opined that If an attorney can refuse to answer and be defaulted, and still present a "meritorious" defense when the default judgment is extended, the attorney's client has suffered nothing by its refusal to answer, and Maryland Rules are meaningless.
The moral of the story for Maryland personal injury lawyers from this case is as obviosu today as it was over forty years ago when this case was decided: if the trial court orders an attorney to answer discovery, attorney's failure to answer that discovery is at his or her own peril.
Courts have continued to cite this case as recently as 2005 for this established rule:
"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 properly to prepare their claims and defenses, thereby advancing the sound and expeditious administration of justice. In order to accomplish the above purposes, the discovery rules are to be liberally construed. And the trial judges, who are primarily called upon to administer said rules, are vested with a reasonable, sound discretion in applying them, which discretion will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of its abuse." See Beyond Sys. v. Realtime Gaming Holding Co., LLC, 388 Md. 1 (2005).
