Rubin v. Gray

⁴⁰⁰ Lowe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. When a party plaintiff failed to answer defendants’ interrogatories for nearly 13 months after they were filed, during which time he: ignored repeated written requests to do so; violated agreements to comply within extended deadlines; failed, upon order of court, to show cause why judgment non prosequitur should not be entered; and, after dismissal, was unable to convince the court to reconsider, we can find no abuse of the trial judge’s discretion in that denial. Our decision is reenforced by the failure of the appellant to have yet filed the answers, as revealed by the record. The authority to impose this “gravest of sanctions” found in Md. Rule 422 b. and c. 1. is not limited to wilful or contemptuous failures to answer, but may 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.

See Lynch v. R. E. Tull & Sons, Inc., 251 Md. 260, 261-262 . The facts and circumstances indicate that several courteous attempts by appellees to obtain the answers were ignored. When sanctions were threatened by appellees, compliance was promised on prescribed dates. Those promises were broken and further requests for answers were also ignored.

Before dismissing the suit, the court provided appellant an opportunity to justify or excuse the failure to comply (which in itself decries an abuse of discretion, see Miller v. Talbott, 239 Md. 382 ), but appellant was unable to do so. The judge then entered a judgment non prosequitur from which appellant did not appeal. He chose instead to move the court to reconsider 1 and, upon hearing before a