Karl v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Maryland, Inc.

ALPERT, Judge. Appellant, William R. Karl, appeals from an order entered in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County granting a motion for sanctions filed by appellee, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Maryland, and dismissing appellant’s complaint. Appellant asks: I. Did the trial court err in dismissing appellant’s complaint without a hearing after a hearing had been requested and scheduled?

II

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in dismissing this action for appellant’s failure to provide discovery, when the information requested amounted to clarification and categorization, rather than for additional discoverable information? We answer the first question in the affirmative and, therefore, reverse without reaching the second question. Facts Appellant filed a complaint for damages against his estranged wife, Judith Karl, and against her insurance company (appellee), alleging that he was entitled to receive insurance benefits under Mrs. Karl’s insurance policy. Appellant failed to respond to certain discovery requests and appellee filed a motion for sanctions.

After appellant answered appellee’s interrogatories and request for production of documents, this motion for sanctions was denied. Appellee, dissatisfied with some of the answers to its discovery requests, filed a motion to compel which the court granted. Appellant failed to respond to the motion to compel and appellee filed a second motion for sanctions, requesting, inter alia, dismissal of the complaint. Additionally, appellee requested a hearing on the motion for sanctions.

Although a hearing was scheduled, the court ⁷⁴⁵ granted the motion for sanctions and dismissed the complaint against appellee without holding the hearing. Appellant filed a motion to revise the judgment, which was denied. Appellant’s claim against Mrs. Karl was settled by means of a consent judgment in the amount of $1,347.86. This appeal followed.

Discussion Maryland Rule 2-433 provides in pertinent part: Rule 2-433. SANCTIONS (a) For Certain Failures of Discovery.—Upon a motion filed under Rule 2-432(a), the court, if it finds a failure of discovery, may enter such orders in regard to the failure as are just, including one or more of the following: (3) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceeding until the discovery is provided, or dismissing the action or any part thereof, or entering a judgment by default that includes a determination as to liability and all relief sought by the moving party against the failing party if the court is satisfied that it has personal jurisdiction over that party. (b) For Failure to Comply with Order Compelling Discovery.—If a person fails to obey an order compelling discovery, the court, upon motion of a party and reasonable notice to other parties and all persons affected, may enter such orders in regard to the failure as are just, including one or more of the orders set forth in section (a) of this Rule. (Emphasis added).

Additionally, where a rule does not expressly provide for a hearing on a motion, Maryland Rule 2—311(f) sets forth the procedure by which a hearing may be requested: A party desiring a hearing on a motion ... shall so request in the motion or response under the heading “Request for ⁷⁴⁶ Hearing.” Except when a rule expressly provides for a hearing, the court shall determine in' each case whether a hearing will be held, but it may not render a decision that is dispositive of a claim or defense without a hearing if one was requested as provided in this section. (emphasis added). Thus, where either party has filed a timely request for a hearing on a motion that may be dispositive of a claim or defense, “Maryland procedure” requires that the court provide an oral hearing and “adequate notice of the time, place, and nature of that hearing” before entering an order that