Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Coe v. Bass
Citations: 74 Md. App. 346; 537 A.2d 643; 1988 Md. App. LEXIS 68Docket: No. 1424
Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland; March 2, 1988; Maryland; State Appellate Court
This case originates from the 1985 Maryland savings and loan crisis, specifically the investigation initiated by Governor Harry R. Hughes, which led to the appointment of a Special Counsel to probe the collapse of certain savings and loan associations insured by the Maryland Savings Share Insurance Corporation (MSSIC). The Maryland Deposit Insurance Fund (MDIF) subsequently filed a lawsuit against former MSSIC officers and directors, seeking $450 million in damages. Subpoenas were issued to four non-party witnesses—attorneys John Y. Church, Ward B. Coe, Carl Gold, and investigator R. Lee Caple—to testify. The subpoenas required their depositions to continue until completed. Prior to the depositions, the MSSIC attorney communicated a schedule for the depositions, which the witnesses referenced to limit their testimony duration. MDIF, dissatisfied with their refusal to continue beyond the agreed timeframe, sought writs of body attachment and a contempt petition against the witnesses. The Anne Arundel County Circuit Court subsequently held a hearing, resulting in a contempt ruling against the witnesses for not complying with the subpoenas. Each was sentenced to confinement until they purged their contempt by completing their depositions, with a 90-day postponement of actual confinement contingent on their compliance. The appellants, now found in contempt, have appealed, questioning the legality of the circuit court's decision. The court reached the same ultimate decision regarding all four appellants, but the legal paths differed for Trooper Caple versus Messrs. Church, Coe, and Gold. Caple was deposed following a subpoena, invoking Maryland Rule 2-510(a), which necessitates a subpoena for nonparty attendance and document production. Although Caple appeared and participated initially, he did not complete his deposition, leading to a situation governed by discovery sanction rules. Maryland Rule 2-433 outlines sanctions for discovery failures, but as Caple is a nonparty, the relevant rules are 2-432(b) and 2-433(b). The court found Caple interrupted his deposition by leaving, thus failing to answer questions, which justified MSSIC's motion to compel under Rule 2-432(b)(4). Failure to comply with a court order could lead to contempt under Rule 2-433(b). Since MSSIC did not follow proper procedures, the contempt judgment against Caple was reversed. In contrast, Church, Coe, and Gold appeared at depositions not under the original subpoenas but based on a mutual agreement between counsel, effectively nullifying the subpoenas. Their refusal to return for subsequent depositions did not violate any subpoenas, though it breached their agreement. MSSIC should have sought a motion to compel discovery when the trio refused further questioning, and failing to do so resulted in reversing their contempt convictions as well. The court clarified that MSSIC can now file motions to compel against all four appellants. Judgments were reversed, with costs to be borne by the appellees.