Opinion ID: 1549541
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Demand for Particulars

Text: Count I of the Declaration consisted of three paragraphs, the first two of which were the common counts relative to work done and materials provided and money found to be due on accounts stated, respectively. The third paragraph of that count was as follows: 3. and for that on August 19, 1968 in consideration of the sum of Two Million, Four Hundred Fifty Thousand ($2,450,000.00) Dollars Plaintiff contracted with Defendant to construct the Broadneck Wastewater Treatment Plant in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. That the Plaintiff performed its side of the contract in its entirety according to specifications provided by the Defendant but was also required to perform additional work, as permitted under the contract, due to deficiencies and omissions in the specifications for the project, as provided by Defendant. That the additional work was not caused by any fault of the Plaintiff. That the Plaintiff was forced to repair the 48 foot outfall line on the project due to the improper specifications causing additional expense over and above the contract price, which the Defendant has refused to pay thereby breaking the contract, and the Plaintiff claims the sum of Fifty Thousand Seven Hundred Forty-One Dollars and Ninety Seven Cents ($50,741.97). The demand for particulars here under consideration was: 1. With respect to Count 1, subparagraph 3, please state what repairs were accomplished to the 48' outfall line and which specifications are alleged to have been improper and to have caused additional expense above the contract price. Norair excepted to that demand as improper, claiming that [t]he information demanded [was] a matter of evidence to prove [Norair's] claim, and [was] not necessary in order to give sufficient notice of the claim, that [i]t m[ight] not be obtained by particulars, but only, if at all, by interrogatory or other discovery procedure. This exception was sustained, thus producing the County's assignment of error. First of all, it must be noted that the demand for particulars is not of the first two paragraphs of the first count, the two common counts. Under the statute as it existed for many years prior to 1957 (Maryland Code (1951) Art. 75, § 28 (107) being the most recent codification), a bill of particulars could be obtained as a matter of right where the pleading [was] so general as not to give sufficient notice to the opposite party of the evidence to be offered in support of it. This was interpreted to require particulars of a common count upon request. See 1 Poe, Pleading and Practice § 136 (5th ed. Tiffany 1925). The present Maryland Rule 346 a provides for a bill of particulars whenever a pleading is so general as not to give sufficient notice to [a defendant] of the claim ... asserted by such pleading, which has been interpreted as effecting a change in the former rule. See editor's note to Rule 346 a. It is in the light of this rule that the present request must be examined. In Sommers v. Wilson Bldg. & L. Ass'n, 270 Md. 397, 311 A.2d 776 (1973), we had before us a demurrer to a declaration. We said relative to the declaration: Even a careful examination leaves one at a loss in determining whether the declaration sounds in assumpsit or tort, or whether it represents an effort by the pleader to impermissibly combine these two forms of action into a single count. Id. at 400. We concluded that the declaration was vulnerable to attack on demurrer and that the interests of justice would be promoted by remanding the case without affirmance or reversal in accordance with Rule 871 a, with leave to file an amended declaration. However, in acceding to the request of the appellant that he be given an opportunity to file an amended declaration, Judge Digges said for the Court: This request is granted in part because confusion has resulted from the appellees' erroneous utilization of Rule 346 (demand for particulars) to procure information which is only obtainable under the deposition and discovery rules (Rules 400-425). Here, the demand sought the particulars of all agreements and understandings between the parties, written or otherwise, whether they formed the basis of the action or not, concerning the duty of the appellees to keep the appellants' property insured. Such a broad request under Rule 346 is improper. Particulars are only permitted to satisfy the demands of pleading. Cline v. Fountain, etc., Company, 214 Md. 251, 134 A.2d 304 (1957). On the other hand, if a party desires the extensive information requested here, interrogatories and other forms of discovery are the proper tools to be utilized. The discovery rules are designed to satisfy the cravings of a litigant to acquire pretrial knowledge of the contentions being made by opposing parties, as well as all facts relevant to the dispute. In fact, a bill of particulars is rarely used today as its function has been largely made obsolete by the rules governing discovery and summary judgment. Nicholson v. Blanchette, 239 Md. 168, 188, 210 A.2d 732 (1965); Hub Bel Air, Inc. v. Hirsch, 203 Md. 637, 641, 102 A.2d 550 (1954). Id. at 401-02. (Emphasis in original.) It must be remembered that our present discovery practice is of comparatively recent origin, dating from the adoption by the Court of General Rules of Practice and Procedure on January 30, 1941, effective September 1, 1941, pursuant to the 18th Section of Article 4 of the Constitution of this State, and Chapter 719 of the Acts of the General Assembly of 1939. All of the information sought by the County here was available to it under Chapter 400 of the Maryland Rules and could well have been obtained by interrogatories under Rule 417. The third paragraph of the first count of the declaration g[ave] sufficient notice to [the County] of the claim ... asserted by such pleading. Accordingly, Judge Melvin did not err in sustaining the exceptions to the demand.