Opinion ID: 2156685
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: James's Exceptions to Findings of Fact based upon discovery sanctions.[22]

Text: Mr. James also has requested that the matter be remanded, as the defense was severely prejudiced by the inability to use, in either defense or rebuttal documents which were made available to Petitioner. On the morning of the hearing, Bar Counsel pressed preliminary motions regarding the untimeliness of Mr. James's responses to interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for admissions and genuineness of documents, all of which had been served upon Mr. James on May 29, 2004, but not responded to until August 31, 2004, just twenty days before the hearing. At the hearing, Mr. James conceded that his responses were untimely. In addition to untimeliness, Bar Counsel asserted that Mr. James's Answers to Interrogatories were unresponsive: Interrogatory number 9 stated, If you intend to rely upon any documents or other tangible things to support a position that you have taken or intend to take in the action, provide a brief description, by category and location, of all such documents and other tangible things, and identify all persons having possession, custody, or control of them, to which Respondent replied, Please see response to request for production of documents. I may rely upon any document that has been reviewed by, received from or sent to the Petitioner. Interrogatory number 17 requested, For each of your clients named in the Petition for Disciplinary Action, state in detail the date you were retained, the nature of the legal work for which you were retained, the actual work you performed and the date of termination (if any) for each employment, to which Mr. James responded, Please see request for production of documents. Interrogatory number 18 asked, For each of your clients named in the Petition for Disciplinary Action, state the date of each communication you had with each client and the purpose and nature of each such communication (e.g., letter, telephone, etc.) and identify all documents which evince such communications, to which Mr. James responded, I cannot remember the date of each communication I had with each named client and the purpose and nature of each such communication as specified in this interrogatory. Interrogatory number 19 queried, For each of your clients named in the Petition for Disciplinary Action, identify each person with whom you communicated on behalf of each client, the date, purpose and nature of each such communication and identify all documents which evince such communications, to which Mr. James replied, I cannot remember each person with whom I communicated on behalf of each named client as specified in this interrogatory. Further, in response to each and every request for production of documents, Mr. James had stated, Upon availability, inspection and related activities concerning relevant and non-privileged material, will be provided as requested. Mr. James asserts that he made client files available to Mr. Fielder, the investigator for Bar Counsel, and that he made boxes of his client files available to Bar Counsel on August 10, 2004, when the diversion agreement was signed, and on August 31, 2004, after the diversion agreement was revoked, when his deposition was taken; Bar Counsel did not review the uncategorized boxes of documents. After lengthy argument presented by both Petitioner and Respondent, the hearing judge found that the responses were untimely and not responsive, agreed to deem admitted the admissions of facts and genuineness of documents, and foreclosed the Respondent from putting on documentary evidence relying upon that which had been requested in those requests. Respondent, however, argues that he was prejudiced by his inability to use documents made available to Petitioner on August 31st, specifically with respect to his inability to refresh Mr. Kazim's recollection on cross-examination or for rebuttal, to show the frequency and specific dates of communication with Mr. Kazim, or to provide two cash deposits totaling $1,476.30. First, the responses to the discovery requests were untimely, even if they were considered to be responsive, having been filed on August 31, 2004, just twenty days prior to the hearing. The hearing judge did not abuse his discretion in determining that the conceded untimeliness of all of the discovery responses was an essential factor in precluding Respondent's use of information not timely produced. See Wilson v. Crane, 385 Md. 185, 867 A.2d. 1077 (2005) (Thus, an abuse of discretion should only be found in the extraordinary, exceptional or most egregious case), citing Baltimore Transit Co. v. Mezzanotti, 227 Md. 8, 13-14, 174 A.2d 768, 771 (1961) (stating that trial judges, who are primarily called upon to administer [discovery] 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). In addition, the hearing judge found that the answers to interrogatories and requests for production of documents were non-responsive, which also was not an abuse of his discretion. Maryland Rule 2-421(b) provides, in pertinent part, that: The party to whom the interrogatories are directed shall serve a response within 30 days after service of the interrogatories or within 15 days after the date on which that party's initial pleading or motion is required, whichever is later. The response shall answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing under oath, or shall state fully the grounds for refusal to answer any interrogatory. The response shall set forth each interrogatory followed by its answer. An answer shall include all information available to the party directly or through agents, representatives, or attorneys. . . . Rule 2-422 provides, in pertinent part, that: (c) Response. The party to whom a request is directed shall serve a written response within 30 days after service of the request or within 15 days after the date on which that party's initial pleading or motion is required, whichever is later. The response shall state, with respect to each item or category, that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested, unless the request is refused, in which event the reasons for refusal shall be stated. If the refusal relates to part of an item or category, the part shall be specified. (d) Production. A party who produces documents for inspection shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the request. Neither Rule was satisfied by Respondent in this case. At argument Respondent asserted that he had responded adequately to the interrogatories and the request for production of documents because he had proffered interrogatory answers on August 31, 2004, twenty days before the hearing. Those answers, however, were woefully inadequate in almost all respects, but particularly when in response to Interrogatory number 9. Compounding this non-responsiveness was the fact that, as Respondent conceded at argument, his response to the Request for Production of Documents was essentially that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested unless the request is refused. Mr. James argues that he was being responsive by providing boxes of uncategorized documents three months after service of the Requests, on the day of his deposition, which had been separately noted, and twenty days before the hearing. Under these circumstances, we do not find that Judge Jackson abused his discretion in determining that Mr. James was unresponsive to discovery requests and in imposing the specific sanction. The sanction imposed by Judge Jackson clearly was proportionate to the discovery abuse by Mr. James. Md. Rule 2-433(a); see, e.g., People v. Camp, 352 Ill.App.3d 257, 287 Ill.Dec. 336, 815 N.E.2d 980, 984 (2004) (remanding the case to the trial court because sanction was disproportionate to the discovery violation); Usowski v. Jacobson, 267 Conn. 73, 836 A.2d 1167, 1174 (2003) (stating that the sanction must be proportional to violation and is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard). Even were we to find an abuse of discretion, which we do not, the respondent was not prejudiced by the hearing judge's decision. Although Mr. James alleges that he lacked the ability to cross-examine Mr. Kazim, and refresh his recollection, as to dates and times, the record reflected that Mr. James used Mr. Kazim's complaint to the AGC to refresh his recollection of four visits that Mr. James conducted with Mr. Kazim that lasted approximately a half an hour or less and numerous messages that Mr. Kazim left for Mr. James on the latter's cell phone. Mr. James also refers in this exception to the two cash deposits totaling $1,476.30 noted in the findings of fact, as coming from Mr. Kazim's $1,500 check, to support a finding of prejudice. The gravamen of the issue surrounding the money is that none of Mr. Kazim's retainer ever was placed in a trust account, including the $500 allegedly to be paid to an investigator. Further, Mr. James, in his answer to the Petition for Disciplinary Action, admitted that, Upon receipt of Kazim's $1,500 check, the Respondent cashed the check and thereafter made two cash deposits into his operating account totaling $1,476.30. This exception is denied.