Scheduling Order Sanctions: Little v. Hyde

The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog includes other Maryland personal injury cases that involve issues that also arise in medical malpractice cases. In this post, I delve into the implications of sanctions for failing to adhere to the court’s scheduling order. I use January 13, 2025, Appellate Court of Maryland’s unreported opinion in Little v. Hyde, No. 1681, as a case study.

Factual Background

The plaintiff was the driver of a car and brought suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in February of 2022 against the driver and owner of another car that collided with his car. In December, the plaintiff was held without bail on criminal charges in another case. In March of 2023, the circuit court issued the scheduling order for this case, and the plaintiff was convicted and later received a 10-year sentence. (Op. at 2).

In June, the defense moved for scheduling order sanctions for the plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery requests sent in November 2022. He also had failed to designate expert witnesses by the April 2023 deadline. The plaintiff further failed to oppose the motion, and the court granted it, entering sanctions that prevented the plaintiff from putting on liability, damages, and expert evidence. (Id. at 3).

The defense filed a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff opposed it and filed motions to vacate the sanctions and amend the scheduling order. The plaintiff said his incarceration had prevented him from participating in discovery, but he had resumed communications with his lawyer. (Id.).

The circuit court denied the plaintiff’s motions and granted the defense motion for summary judgment. The court noted there was no indication the plaintiff’s lawyer had taken steps to find and communicate with the plaintiff, and the lawyer had failed to respond to the sanctions motion. The court observed that the trial date had come, and “nothing has occurred.” The plaintiff appealed.  (Id. at 4-5).

Appellate Court of Maryland on Scheduling Order Sanctions

The Appellate Court stated that the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the discovery and sanctions motion showed that he had neither substantially complied with the scheduling order nor demonstrated good cause for his failure. The trial court could conclude that there was bad faith or willful disregard of the scheduling order. Accordingly, the Appellate Court concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the sanctions. (Id. at 11).

The Appellate Court also found that the plaintiff’s violations of the scheduling order were substantive, not technical, and the plaintiff had failed to substantially comply with the scheduling order. (Id. at 14).

There was evidence supporting the circuit court’s conclusion that there was no good cause for the scheduling order violations and that the plaintiff’s incarceration did not excuse the ongoing violations. (Id.). In addition, there was potential for significant prejudice to the defense in delaying the litigation beyond the four years and three months that had already elapsed from the accident. (Id. at 15).

The plaintiff emphasized that he had designated experts and answered interrogatories the month before the summary judgment hearing and that the discovery was substantially complete. The Appellate Court, however, found that the plaintiff’s disregard for the scheduling order was persistent and egregious. Therefore, the court concluded that a postponement would not cure the prejudice. Based on the above factors, the Appellate Court concluded that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motions to modify the scheduling order and vacate the sanctions. (Id. at 15-16). 

Summary Judgment

Last, the plaintiff argued that summary judgment was improper because the defense did not submit a sworn statement supporting its motion, stating facts that entitled it to summary judgment. (Id. at 16-17). The Appellate Court, however, observed that an affidavit is not necessary when the movant has otherwise demonstrated no genuine dispute of material fact. The circuit court could conclude from its sanctions order that the plaintiff could not establish his claim. (Id. at 18). The summary judgment was proper. (Id. at 19).

Commentary by Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on Scheduling Order Sanctions

There are numerous appellate opinions on sanctions for failing to comply with scheduling orders, each varying in severity. This case, however, involves the most severe form of sanction – the equivalent of a dismissal of the case. The gravity of this outcome cannot be overstated.

Managing a busy plaintiff’s personal injury practice is an incredibly challenging task. The complexities involved in complying with numerous scheduling order requirements and deadlines in various cases can be overwhelming.

One of the most significant challenges in managing a plaintiff’s personal injury practice is securing the client’s cooperation, which is crucial for meeting scheduling order requirements. This often involves obtaining information, signatures, and ensuring the client’s attendance at appointments, including doctor’s visits and court appearances.

Client cooperation can vary significantly. Some clients are very good at responding to what the lawyer needs. Others vary in their reliability. Still, others can cause significant problems due to their lack of communication and cooperation with the lawyer.

This case presented a tough challenge. A plaintiff’s incarceration significantly limits their ability to communicate and participate in a lawsuit. The lawyer can overcome this challenge, but it is not easy.

Communication

Effective communication with the court is vital to prevent unfavorable outcomes. Failing to respond to a scheduling order sanctions motion can significantly reduce the chances of overturning the sanctions. While courts may not always be open to extending scheduling order deadlines, if a lawyer promptly communicates the challenges they face and demonstrates a good faith effort to address them, many courts will be understanding and accommodating.

The lack of communication and activity here exceeded what the court would tolerate.

Not every lawyer will undertake the challenges of representing an incarcerated plaintiff. In this case, the incarceration occurred after the lawyer filed the case. The plaintiff’s lawyer had a choice at that point. One option included withdrawing from the case. When the plaintiff’s lawyer stayed with the case, they chose to undertake the communication and efforts needed to deal with those special circumstances. If at any point the client failed to provide what the lawyer needed, withdrawal could be pursued.

Mark Kopec is a top-rated Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. Contact us at 800-604-0704 to speak directly with Attorney Kopec in a free consultation. The Kopec Law Firm is in Baltimore and helps clients throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. Thank you for reading the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog.