Motion to Compel Discovery Response and Deem Requests for Admission Admitted

This is a sample motion to have requests for admission deemed admitted because of the defendant’s failure to respond.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY

ANNA ANDERSON
– Plaintiff,

v.

LOUIS SLAVOTINEK,
– Defendant,

CIVIL ACTION NO.:

MOTION TO COMPEL

Anna Anderson, Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, Ronald V. Miller, Jr., Laura G. Zois, and Miller & Zois, LLC, requests that this Honorable Court compel Defendant, Louis Anthony Slavotinek, Jr., to answer Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and to deem admitted Requests for Admission that were served on Defendant on January 29, 2021. In support, Plaintiff states as follows:

1. Plaintiff served Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and First Request for Admissions on Defendant on January 29, 2021, in this personal injury/auto accident case. See Exhibits A-C.
2. Defendant filed an Answer on February 19, 2021. See Exhibit D. At that time, Defendant also propounded Interrogatories on the Plaintiff that were answered on March 31, 2021. See Exhibit E.
3. Plaintiff’s counsel is not trying to sandbag the defendant.  Defendant counsel has still refused to answer discovery three separate letters from Plaintiff’s counsel requesting the Defendant answer discovery. See Exhibits F-H.
4. Maryland Rule 2-424 unambiguously states that “each matter of which an admission is requested shall be deemed admitted” unless a response is given in the time prescribed, in this case, 45 days. Because this rule is self-executing, defendants are required under Maryland law to seek relief from this Court to allow them to amend their answers to Plaintiff’s admission requests. Murnan v. Joseph J. Hock, Inc., 274 Md. 528, 533-34 (1975) (“. . . to fulfill its unquestioned function, to eliminate the need to prove factual matters at trial which the adversary cannot fairly contest, the admission produced by the rule must be conclusively binding. A contrary interpretation would reduce the rule to a “useless appendage”); Maryland Rule 2-424(d) (“Any matter admitted under this Rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment . . .”).
5. Maryland Rule 2-424(d) gives this Court unfettered discretion to determine whether to grant a party relief. Assuming  Defendant seeks relief in response to this motion, this Court should deny Defendant’s request because he is not deserving of dispensation. Defendant has willfully ignored the Maryland Rules and has ignored three separate requests to provide responses.Accordingly, Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendant to answer requests for production of documents and interrogatories within ten (10) days and an order deeming Plaintiff’s First Request for Admissions to Defendant admitted.

Good Faith Certificate

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND

ANNA ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,

v.

LOUIS ANTHONY SLAVOTINEK, JR.,
Defendant.

CASE NO.: 24-C-08-009564

Certificate of Good Faith Attempts to Resolve Discovery Dispute

The undersigned counsel for the Plaintiff certifies that counsel for the above parties have been unable to reach an agreement concerning this dispute, and as reasons, state:

1. That on April 6, 2021, the attorney representing Plaintiff in this car accident claim requested that the Defendant supply Answers to Interrogatories and responsive documents. A copy of this letter is attached hereto and prayed to be read as a part hereof as Exhibit F.
2. That on April 15, 2021, the attorney representing Plaintiff requested that Defendant supply Answers to Interrogatories and responsive documents. A copy of this letter is attached hereto and prayed to be read as a part hereof as Exhibit G.
3. That on May 18, 2021, the attorney representing Plaintiff requested that Defendant supply Answers to Interrogatories and responsive documents. A copy of this letter is attached hereto and prayed to be read as a part hereof as Exhibit H.
4. As of the present date, Plaintiff has not yet received executed Answers to Interrogatories, Response to the Request for Production of Documents, or Response to Request for Admissions from the Defendant.

Respectfully submitted,
Miller & Zois, LLC

Laura G. Zois
1 South St, #2450
Baltimore, MD 21202
(410)779-4600
(410)760-8922 (fax)
Attorneys for the Plaintiff

Comments for Maryland Lawyers

This is the garden variety motion to compel accident and malpractice lawyers file when the defendant is not answering discovery. Trial judges are vested with great discretion in applying sanctions for discovery failures, including failure to respond to request for admissions.

But trying to knock the ball out of the park for initial discovery violations is often unwise. Smart lawyers simply try to get the answer they need to try the case. But if discovery failures are ongoing – particularly if requests for admission are involved – more serious sanctions may be in order.

In Maryland, make sure that you file your good faith motion as set forth above and remember that good faith should require more than just a cursory letter right before you file your motion.

Related Links

• Sample Motions (sample discovery motions and other examples of motions filed in personal injury cases)
  • Another Simple Motion to Compel

Information on Miller & Zois

• Firm Overview
• Our Lawyers
• Why Co-Counsel Your Serious Injury Case with Miller & Zois