WPCU =.`e~^]3j/Z3uՋ?xQpX[ܒ љA#HO)qb4 ӇfLC*ϰ%(JҿM,\Hz zTļҌ&c)z=X(|?b1YumF;,NhER ,ژb{xmkQƕr/dm}.mO:J @\~wY^$mp`8LuO[sXQgP9hKp38tL+~!;c+ڔTr90CkwrX F%9¾ޯ)^XWң5elDlFdhw|<YK2 Z^p&|(.q BpKdWImWy|66 #}_ia)e~SņDzGN\cԿ| 4I=0z_[ӢmbHu ,S# UqN % 0: ^ ! w- 41 E T mV UP>m 0V UJ NK 0M 0D  0V1" 0E 0 0 0 0 0~ 0] 09 0 0 0 0 0s 0F 0 0 0 0t 08 0 0 0 0! 0a" 0-# 0# 0$ 0<% 0% 0& 0' 0( 0) 0r* 0[+ 0A, 0$- 1m. 72q. 1u. 72/ 00J/ 0<z/ 0/ 0>t0 0v0 0`(1 0`1 0`1 0`H2 0`2 083 0@3 024 0D4 0:@5 0Yz5 0_5 0 26 0j<7 08 B**: D/T: D+: 0: D/2< 0a< B/= 06L= 0= 0:> 0^> 0<"?U6^?U*? 1? 1E@ 72@ 0c@ 0waA 1A 72_B 1B 72CU@JC 72Ce CCC 72D 0DD]E 1FQ(GU@yH 1H 72@I 1rI 72I 1+J 72J ASJ7K 0VK 0VSL 0DL D5LL 1_"M 1M 72N 72:N 1lN 72N %O ;O OOP[RTAdobe PDF0(   Z6Times New Roman Regular($USUS.,!3 *2ingn3|xU\  `&Times New Roman(.3$ !USUS.,  ),h  Z 2CG Times (W1) Regular (:(2x$ !USUS.,        0  (#$  0     (.3$ !USUS.,      e 2G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2   ; 9 #Cd#  2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  22+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  <:Default Para<D+J :Outline001_1   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <D+J :Outline001_2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <A+J :Outline001_3 j 4 ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2 j <>+J :Outline001_4   &hhDL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <;+J :Outline001_5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <8+J :Outline001_6 j <  DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2 j <5+J :Outline001_7   ppL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <2+J :Outline001_8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  </+J :Outline001_9 j D    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2 j 234567890J35;AGMSY_1A.A.i.1.a.i.1.a.;:i.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)=i)0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1   XXX   (&H2 XXX (&H3 XXX (&H4 XXX XXX(&H5 XXX (&H6 XXX 20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK_<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS \  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K_<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS \  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K_<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS \  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7T(X7  ?`%2A`Arial?  XXXS \  `&Times New RomanS7U(X7&  d dS)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7W(X7  ?`%2A`Arial?  XXXS \  `&Times New RomanS7U(X7S)2dxd0KS.SampleK_<6X9`(Courier NewKS \  `&Times New RomanS d0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK_<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS \  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial0CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(ehCEKQW]cioAutoList41.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.aA.(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#0CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.fA.(CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.hA.(9 Z(Times New Roman b1.    сLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 (b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (# : x$USUS.,      2    _XpXOnMarch5,2002, LHDfiledaMotionforSanctionsandMotiontoExtendTimefor  DefendantsDiscoveryResponsesmakingthesameallegations.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList91.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. G x$USUS.,      5    _XpXOfcoursefromKhodorsperspective,manyofMr.Barnessactionsincludinghisargument e attheMay8thhearingwerepartoftheallegedmalpractice.(9 Z(Times New Roman (uhCEKQW]cioAutoList51.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.u1.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList61.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.w1.0hCEKQW]cioAutoList71.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.y1.|}~E<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(.3$ !USUS.,  (.3$ !USUS.,  ($$   1  YYYY)!dxdx3$37;?CGKOS-*+x0hCEKQW]cioAutoList81.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.r1.(գEGMSY_ekqAutoList101.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.StarPageciteas((Cite as: 155 Md.App. 536, *545, 843 A.2d 890, **895)SDU_24 x$USUS.,      1    _XpXKhodorallegesthatthisConsentOrderwasenteredintowithouthisknowledgeorconsent.  x$USUS.,      3    _XpXThefederalcourtrecordreflectsthatWhitefordfiledanOppositiononKhodorsbehalfto  theMotionsbutacopyofthatresponsewasnotattachedtothepleadingsinconnectionwiththe n motionbeforethisCourt.  x$USUS.,      4    _XpXKhodorsnewcounselfiledanOppositiontotheMotionforSanctions,stating onJune3,  2002,ratherthanattempttofilesubstantiveresponses,Mr.Khodor'snewcounselfileditsmotion n toreconsidertheCourt'sMay20thOrderandaskedtheCourtforastayofthatOrderuntilJuly5, W 2002.OnDecember31,2002JudgeBlakedeferredrulingontheSecondMotionforSanctionsand @ denieditonMarch14,2003.  9 !USUS.,  _  eF8Fndd8  fmP_RLeonidKhodor0 0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#*  INTHE    (#(#   Plaintiff0    h   *  CIRCUITCOURTE (# (#   vs. `     h   *  FOR * Whiteford,Taylor&PrestonFn Fn0 h 0h(#h(#*0(#(#BALTIMORECITY#Fn # Fno (#(#   Defendant   #Fn ]# Fn#  殸#   h   *  CaseNo.:24C04006528#  -#  #Fn # Fn  T    `  *  * h *  *  * p *  *#Fn ##FnFn#I       MEMORANDUMOPINION  @h  z      OnAugust27,2004,LeonidKhodor( Khodor)filedaComplaintinthisCourt( the >  MalpracticeAction)againstWhiteford,Taylor&Preston,_LLP_Ԁ( _Whiteford_)allegingthat Q  WhitefordcommittedlegalmalpracticewhichledtothedismissalofKhodorssuitagainst  hisformeremployer(the FederalLitigation).Theallegedmalpracticeisbasedonthe  actionsofPhillipBarnes,Esq.( Mr.Barnes)ofWhiteford,whowasKhodorsattorneyin J theFederalLitigation.  ]  XOnJanuary28,2005,WhitefordfiledaMotiontoDismiss,orinthealternative,for  SummaryJudgmentinwhichitarguesthatthedoctrineofcollateralestoppelbarsthe e MalpracticeActionbecauseduringamotionforreconsiderationintheFederalLitigation, (x Khodorfullyandfairlylitigatedtheissueofresponsibilityforthediscoveryfailuresthatlead ; tothedismissalofthataction.WhitefordarguesthatthefindingsintheFnFnFederalLitigation  ! thatKhodorwaspersonallyresponsibleforcertaindiscoveryfailurescompelstheconclusion q"# thatKhodorwascontributorilynegligentandthattheMalpracticeActionistherefore 4$% precludedasamatteroflaw. %G!' Khodorarguesthatcollateralestoppeldoesnotapplyforseveralreasons.First,he '") arguesthattherewasnotafinaljudgmentonthemeritsbecausetheFederalLitigationended O)$+ withaconsentjudgment,andbecausethesanctionofdismissalwasaresultoffailureto +b&- complywithadiscoveryconsentorder.Second,anywrongdoingonthepartofKhodorthat ,%(/0  98Fndd8   contributedtothediscoveryfailureoccurredafter_Whiteford_Ԁcommittedmalpracticeby  enteringintoaconsentorderthatrequired_Khodor_Ԁtorespondtodiscoveryintwodayson H painofdismissal.Third,theissuestobedecidedintheMalpracticeActionarenotessential   totheissuesdecidedintheFederalLitigationwheretheissuewaswhether_Khodor_Ԁhad  I compliedwiththeconsentorder.Fourth,thefactualdeterminationsthatarecrucialtoa   claimofcontributorynegligencewereneverconsideredintheFederalLitigation.Fifth,the T   issuesintheMalpracticeActionwerenotfullyandfairlylitigatedintheFederalLitigation   because:(1)thefindingsrelieduponby_Whiteford_Ԁweremadeinthecontextofadecision U  denying_Khodor_smotionforreconsiderationafterasummaryproceedingwithoutthebenefit  ofdiscovery;(2)thehearingonthemotionforreconsiderationincludedevidencethatwould ` havebeeninadmissibleatatrialorinsupportofamotionforsummaryjudgment;and(3) # therewasahigherburdenon_Khodor_Ԁtoconvincethecourttograntthemotionfor a reconsiderationthanhehastoconvincethe_factfinder_Ԁthattherewasmalpractice. $ #FnFn; #FnFnAhearingwasheldon_Whiteford_smotiononMarch14,2005.Afterargument,the > Courtrequestedthatcounselfilesupplementalmemorandaaddressingwhethertheissuesin | thisactionwerefullyandfairlylitigatedintheFederalLitigation.Counselwerealso ? directedtoprovidethisCourtwithcopiesofthematerialconsideredbythefederalcourtin    rulingonthemotionforreconsideration.#FnFnr#Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,theCourtwill J"" issueanorderdenyingFnFnthemotiontodismissorinthealternativeforsummaryjudgment#FnFn#.  $$    UNCONTESTEDFACTS  %!& _Khodor_ԀoriginallyfiledsuitinFnFnԀstatecourtinOhio#FnFn/#againsthisformeremployer,_LHD_ ;'"( Vending,Inc.( _LHD_). FnFn_LHD_ԀremovedthecasetoOhiofederalcourt,itwassubsequently (y$* transferredtofederalcourtinMaryland(the FederalLitigation)and_Khodor_Ԁre#FnFn#tained *C&, _Whiteford_Ԁtorepresenthim. FnFnA#FnFn#FnFnfteritsmotiontodismisswasdenied,_LHD_ԀfiledanAnswer, ,(. aCounterclaim,and#FnFn#writtendiscoveryrequests.Almosttwoandahalfmonthsafter  _Khodor_sresponsetodiscoverywasdue,_LHD_ԀfiledaMotiontoCompelResponsesalleging H thattherehadbeenatotalfailureofdiscovery.ThatmotionwasfiledonNovember13,   2001.OnNovember28,2001,thepartiesenteredintoaConsentOrder #  1      ׀andinexchange,  I _LHD_ԀwithdrewitsMotiontoCompel.TheConsentOrderrequired_Khodor_Ԁtoprovide   completeresponses,withoutobjections,exceptonthebasisofattorneyclientprivilegeor T   workproductprotectionbynolaterthanNovember30,2001.TheConsentOrderfurther   providedthattheClerkwoulddismiss_Khodor_scomplaintifhefailedto fileacertificate U  ...certifyingthatfullresponsesandanswerscomplyingwiththegoverningruleswere  served,...,inaccordancewith[theConsent]Order....FnFn ` OnFebruary26,2002,_LHD_ԀfiledaMotiontoDismissallegingthat_Khodor_Ԁfailedto p filetherequiredcertificateandfailedtoprovidecompleteresponsesandanswerstothe 3 discoveryrequestsbecause themajorityofPlaintiffsdiscoveryresponses[were] { incomplete,evasive,nonresponsive,and/orincomprehensible.#FnFn!#FnFn Additionally_LHD_Ԁalleged > that_Khodor_Ԁhadproduceddocumentsbutfailedtoidentifyinanymannerwhichdocuments | correspondedtowhichRequestforProductionand/orInterrogatory.Astodocuments ? producedinelectronicformat,_LHD_Ԁallegeditwasunabletoopenthemandthatdespitea    request,_Khodor_Ԁfailedtoprovideahardcopyorinformationonhowtoopenthem._LHD_ J"" alsoidentifiedallegeddeficienciesinsixspecificinterrogatoriesandthreespecificrequests  $$ fordocuments.Finally,_LHD_Ԁallegedthat_Khodor_ԀexecutedtheInterrogatorieswithaclaim %K!& thathedidnothavepersonalknowledgeofthefactscontainedintheanswers._LHD_Ԁalleged '#(  thateffortstogetcompleteresponseshadprovenunsuccessfulandrequested#FnFn##FnFnthecourtto V)$* _ dismisstheactionforfailuretocomplywiththeConsentOrder#FnFn(#.q #  2      ׀FnFnLHDpointedoutinits   Reply#FnFn)#FnFnthatKhodorhadtakennoactionafterthefilingofthemotionstosupplementhis H discoveryresponses.#FnFn*#FnFnb #  3      ׀   O#FnFn*#nApril17,2002,LHDfiledaSecondMotiontoCompelResponsestoWritten   DiscoveryduetoKhodorsTotalLackofResponsetodiscoveryrequestsfiledonFebruary c  26,2002.LHDallegedthatbeforefilingthesecondmotiontheycontactedKhodorscounsel &   byletterbutneverreceivedaresponsetotheletterortodiscovery.Inhisstatusreporttothe d  Court,KhodorscounselallegedthatheneverreceivedLHDsInterrogatoriesortheletter '  datedApril5th. o  AhearingonthemotionswasheldonMay8,2002.Khodorwasnotpresentandhad  beentoldbyMr.Barnesthatheneednotbepresent.Duringargumenttherewereseveral B representationsmadebyMr.BarnesconcerningKhodorsfailuretoproducedocumentsthat  suggestthatthefailuretobemoreresponsivetothediscoveryrequestwasbecauseof M Khodorsobstinacy.JudgeBlakequestionedwhynoaffidavithadbeenpresentedinsupport  ofsomeoftheallegationsandwhynoprotectiveorderhadbeensought.Itisclearfrom N JudgeBlakesoralopiniongrantingthemotiontodismissthatsheplacedgreatemphasison  thefactthatthediscoveryfailurefollowedtheConsentOrder: Y   tFnFntFntFnf8 ` Ilookfirsttothefactthatthereisaconsentorderinthefile, !i" whichIissued...withtheagreementoftheplaintiffwith "I# considerationinthatthemotionforrequestforattorneysfees #*$ wasbeingdropped.Andthatinthatorder,thereisanagreement $ % toprovidewithoutobjectionotherthanworkproduct_ or q% & attorney/clientprivilege,alltheresponsiveanswersto R&!' interrogatoriesandrequestforproductionofdocuments....` x` x  O @(****   ^ 8 ` Sothesearejustegregiousexamplesinmymindthatfollowa ( veryclearwarningonNovember30,2001oftheconsequences  ofMr.Khodorsfailingtocomplywithhisdiscovery m  obligations.#tFntFnL1#tFntFn#FntFn-1#tFnFnM ` x` x    fk1WhileshepointedoutthatBarneshadnotfiledarequestforaprotectiveordertonot  [  producedocumentsinKhodorspossession,#FntFn5#tFnFn#tFntFnx5#tFntFnJudgeBlakebasedsubstantiallyalltheblame    forthefailureofdiscoveryonKhodor.fv2 f   0  8 ` [_ I]t_ sclearthatthereareanumberofcrucialinadequaciesand u  failurestorespondforwhichitappearsMr.Khodoris V  substantiallyandpersonallyresponsible.***Itis,asitshould 6 becandidly,concededbycounselandclearfromtherecordin  thiscase,thatMr.Khodorhastheresponsivedocuments.They } havenotbeenproduced.Itsbeenbecauseofhisownreasonshe ^ hasnotfeltthatheshouldhavetodothat.Butthats ? unacceptable.Therearemethodsofraisingthatissue  appropriately.Therecouldhavebeenaprotectiveorder { requested.Certainly,itisnotappropriatetosimplyignorehis \ responsibilities,whichisobviouslywhathehasdone.=` x` x   8 ` Ithinkthesameistruewiththeresponsetothedocument V requestthatfailstospecificallyidentifywhatdocumentsare 7 responsivetowhatrequestsandIthinkitisalsotrueinregard  totheelectronicfiles.Thatapparentlytheresbeenverylittle t attempttoopenthemorproducetheminsomereadablefashion U orandapparentlyarefusaltoreturnthisinformationwithout 6  requiringthatthedefendantspaytheshippingcostsforwhichI  ! seenoreasonorexcuse.Itwasadmittedlytheirpropertyand }!" Mr.Khodortookitanditisnotappropriateforhimtoexpectthe ^"# defendantstopaytogettheirownpropertyback.Sothatalso ?#$ relatestothisdiscoveryfailure. $%` x` x  $e & 8 ` Recently,theanswerstothesecondinterrogatoryrequest,the %/!' onethatrequestsspecificfactualinformationregarding &"( witnesseswhoareallegedtohaveknowledge,theanswertothat v'") whichagainappearstobeattributablemostdirectlytoMr. W(#* Khodorpersonally,thoseanswersaretotallyinadequate.8)$+` x` x  *}%, #FntFn6##FnFn!7#f7 XAlthoughnotdiscussedinheroralopinion,duringargumentonthemotionJudgeBlake `,'/ pointedoutthatBarneshadnotfiledanaffidavittosupportKhodorsclaimconcerning  openingtheelectronicdocuments: H fFnFn8  8`   TheCourt:0` x` x***,haveyougivenmeanaffidavitfromMr. X Khodortotheeffectthathecannotopenthem?9xx 8  8`   Mr.Barnes:0` x` xNo,YourHonor.ButImhappytodoso.R xx 8  8`   TheCourt:0` x` xItwouldhavebeenhelpfulandIwouldthinkin  a  responsetothisdiscoveryissueifthatsgoingto  B  bethepositionofMr.Khodor. # xx @(**** <  8  8`   TheCourt:0` x` x***itstroublingthatthereisnoaffidavit....K xx #FnFnB#fB XAJudgeBlakeenteredanorderconsistentwithheroralopiniononMay20,2002, d  grantingLHDsMotiontoDismissKhodorscomplaintandtheMotionforSanctionsand ' MotiontoExtendTimeforDefendantsDiscoveryResponses;grantingjudgmentinfavor e ofLHDandagainstKhodoronthebreachofcontractandconversioncountsinthe ( counterclaim;orderingKhodortoreturntoLHDallpropertyinhispossession,custodyor p controlwhichbelongedtoLHD,andtoproducetoLHDalldocumentsresponsivetotheir 3 discoveryrequestsrelatingtothecounterclaim.Theorderalsoprovidedthatiftherewereany q additionaldiscoveryrequestsrelatingtoLHDscounterclaimtowhichKhodorhadnot 4 responded,LHDwasorderedtospecificallyidentifythoseresponseswithin10daysofthe | ! orderandKhodorwasorderedtofullyrespondtothem10daysaftertherequestswere ?"# identified.Finally,LHDwasgivenanopportunitytofileaffidavitsinsupportofitsrequest $}% forattorneyfees. %@!' OnMay21,2002,KhodorreturnedLHDspropertyincludingacomputer.However, Z'") theharddriveonLHDscomputerindicatedthatonMay14,2002,sixdaysafterthehearing, )$+ ithadbeenreformattedandthatselectdesignfileshadbeenreinstalledonthesamedaybut *[&- theprogramusedtocreateandopenthereinstalledfileswasnotinstalledonthecomputer. ,(/ e 9   ThusLHDcouldnotopenanyofthedesignfiles.Inaddition,Khodordidnotprovideplans,  designsordocumentsrelatedtothedisputedpatentasorderedbytheCourt.OnMay24, H 2002,LHDfaxedtoKhodorscounselDefendantsIdentificationofDiscoveryrequests   RelatingtoCounterclaimstowhichKhodorfailedtorespond.OnMay29,2002,Whiteford  I withdrewitsrepresentationofKhodor.   OnJune3,2002,AndrewWhiteandBarryPollackenteredtheirappearanceas &   counselonKhodorsbehalf.LHDfiledaSecondMotionforSanctionsonJune14,2002 d  relatingtoKhodorsallegedfailuretorespondtotheMay24threquest.OnJuly5,2002 '  KhodorsnewcounselfiledaMotionforReconsiderationarguingthattheinsufficient o  discoveryresponseswhichledtothedismissalsanctionwereduetoWhitefordsactionsor 2 inaction. #  4      ׀ AhearingontheMotionforReconsiderationwasheldonDecember20,2002. p IntheOrderdenyingtheMotion,JudgeBlakestatedthatevenifWhitefordwaspartially 3 responsibleforthediscoveryfailures,Khodorwaspersonallyresponsibleforcertain { discoveryfailures. > 8 ` Evenif[Whiteford]werepartiallyresponsibleforthediscovery N delayinOctoberandNovemberandtheinadequacyofsome I responses,[theCourt]_ remain[s_ ]persuadedfromtherecord[] D thatMr.Khodorispersonallyresponsiblefortherefusalto ? producerequestedpatentdocumentswhendirectedtodoso,the  :  initialandcontinuingfailuretoreturnLHDscomputer,andthe !5! failuretoproduce,inareadablefashion,allthedesigns "0" containedonthecomputer.Further,subsequenttotheMay8, #+# 2002hearing,Mr.Khodorispersonallyresponsibleforthe $& $ decisiontoreformattheharddriveonLHDscomputerbefore %!!% _ returningittoLHD,thusdeterminingforhimselfwithoutthe &"& F e   opportunityofinspectionbycounselwhat,ifanything, e constituted personalinformationthatmayhavebeen ` appropriatetodelete.S[` x` x  FnFnOnDecember31,2002,JudgeBlakesignedanOrderreferringtheFederalLitigation  toMagistrateJudgeBethP.GesnerforasettlementconferenceandonAugust22,2003the  N partiesfiledaJointMotionforConsentOrder.JudgeBlakesignedtheConsentOrder v  therebyclosingtheFederalLitigation.#FnFnX#Ԁ OnAugust27,2004,KhodorfiledthisMalpractice 9   ActionallegingthatWhitefordcommittedlegalmalpracticeinthecourseofitsrepresentation   ofKhodor,whichultimatelyledtothedismissaloftheFederalLitigation. Z   @XX%DISCUSSION  T   XStandardofReview   X[ FnFn Fn FnInreviewingthegrantofamotiontodismisspursuanttoMarylandRule2322(b),the  Courtmustassume thetruthofallwellpleadedfactsandallinferencesthatcanreasonably C bedrawnfromthem.BennettHeating&AirConditioning,Inc.v.NationsBank,103Md.  App.749(1995),revdinpartonothergrounds,342Md.169(1996);2322(b)(2). d However,# Fn Fn[##Fn Fno[# FnFn Fn Fnif mattersoutsidethepleadingarepresentedtoandnotexcludedbythecourt, ' themotionshallbetreatedasoneforsummaryjudgmentanddisposedofasprovidedinRule O 2501.#Fn Fn]# FnFn# Fn Fn]# Fn FnԀMd.Rule2322(c).Because# Fn FnG_#thefactsconsideredinthisMemorandumOpinion    includefactsoutsidetheComplaint,themotionistreatedasamotionforsummaryjudgment. Fn Fn !p" # Fn FnF`# Fn FnPursuanttoMarylandRule2501amotionforsummaryjudgmentmaybegranted j#$ where thereisnogenuinedisputeastoanymaterialfactandthatthe[moving]partyis -% & entitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.SeealsoRussov.Ascher,76Md.App.465,_ 473 &"( (1988);_ Syme_ Ԁv.MarksRentals,Inc.,70Md.App.235,23738(1987);_ Ganter_ Ԁv._ Kapiloff_ , (N$* 69Md.App.97,104(1986).Summaryjudgementactsasagatekeepingmechanism v*&, wherebyonlythoseactionsthatpresentatriableissueoffactproceed.Thus,ifthereisno e issueoffacttobetried,judgmentmustbeenteredaccordingly.SeeCoffeyv.DerbySteel ( Co.,291Md.241,247(1974).  #Fn Fn_# FnFnIndecidingamotionforsummaryjudgment,#Fn Fnd# FnFntheCourtshouldassumethetruthofall   credibleevidenceontheissue,andallfairlydeducibleinferencestherefrom,inthelightmost C  favorabletothepartyagainstwhomthemotionismade.NissanMotorCo.Ltd.v.Nave,129    Md.App.90,11617(1999)%  Ԁ%df%  %f(citationsomitted),cert.denied,357Md.482%  %f(2000). [_ I]f_ Ԁthere d  isanyevidence,nomatterhowslight,thatislegallysufficienttogenerateajuryquestion, '  thecasemustbesubmittedtothejuryforitsconsideration.WashingtonMetro.Area O  TransitAuth.v.Reading,109Md.App.89,99(1996)(citationomitted);_ Orwick_ Ԁv.  _ Moldawer_ ,150Md.App.528,53132(2003).# Fn Fn`##Fn Fnd# p  `   ApplicableLaw j Underthedoctrineofcollateralestoppel, whenan FnFn Fn FnԀissueoffactorlawisactually  litigatedanddeterminedbyavalidandfinaljudgment,andthedeterminationisessentialto [ thejudgment,thedeterminationisconclusiveinasubsequentactionbetweentheparties,  whetheronthesameoradifferentclaim.# Fn Fnj##Fn Fni#Murray_ Intl_ ԀFreightCorp.v.Graham,315Md. F 543,547(1989)(quotingFnFnRestatement(Second)ofJudgments#FnFnEl#Ԁ27 FnFnԀ(1982)).#Fn Fnl#Thishas    beenstatedasaFnFnԀfourparttest: !g" f8 `  FnFn1.Wastheissuedecidedintheprioradjudicationidenticalwith a#$ theonepresentedintheactioninquestion?B$%` x` x   % & 8 ` 2.Wasthereafinaljudgmentonthemerits?%q!'` x` x  &;"( 8 `  ` x` x 8 ` 3.Wasthepartyagainstwhomthepleaisassertedapartyorin 4(#* privitywithapartytotheprioradjudication?)$+` x` x  )z%, 8 ` 4.Wasthepartyagainstwhomthepleaisassertedgivenafair *D&- opportunitytobeheardontheissue?+%'.` x` x Їf}m X_ Colandrea_ Ԁv.WildeLakeCommunity_ Ass'n_ ,Inc.,361Md.371,391(2000)# Fn Fn9m# XpX Fn.# FnX Xp;q# Fn FnԀAnotherwayof e statingthefourthpartofthetestisthat the#Fn Fnm#issueactuallylitigatedwasessentialtothe ( judgmentintheprioraction._ Deitz_ Ԁv._ Palaigos_ ,120Md.App.380,395(1998)(citing   FnFnMurray_ Int'l_ ԀFreightCorp.,315Md.at547).#Fn Fns#Allfourpartsofthetestmustbesatisfiedfor  I thedoctrineofcollateralestoppeltoapply.   q   X~pTheissueofwhetherapartyhada fairopportunitytobeheardhassometimesbeen    statedasavariationoftherequirementthattheissuehavebeen essentialtothejudgment d  inthefirstactionandsometimesasaseparaterequirement.Howeveritisstated,itisa '  crucialfactor. Thefoundationoftheruleof_ nonmutual_ Ԁcollateralestoppelisthattheparty O  tobeboundmusthavehadafullandfairopportunitytolitigatetheissuesinquestion.  Welshv.GerberProds.,Inc.,315Md.510,518(1989).Indeterminingifapartyhadafair p opportunitytobeheard,acourtmustexaminetheburdenofproofinbothproceedingsas 3 wellastherelationshipsbetweentheparties. [ f8 ` Section29oftheRestatement(Second)ofJudgments,  whichsetsforthlimitationsonthedoctrineofissuepreclusion, l makesclearthat,indeterminingwhetherapartyisprecludedby M judgmentfromrelitigatinganissue,considerationmustbe . given,amongotherthings,towhethertheforuminthesecond t actionaffordsthepartyagainstwhompreclusionisasserted U  opportunitiesinthepresentationanddeterminationoftheissue 6   thatwerenotavailableinthefirstactionandcouldlikelyresult !! intheissuebeingdifferentlydeterminedandwhetherthefirst !" determination mayhavebeenaffectedbyrelationshipsamong "t# thepartiestothefirstactionthatarenotpresentinthe #U$ subsequentaction,orapparentlywasbasedonacompromise $6 % verdictorfinding.fw|%!&` x` x  XGreyv.AllstateIns.Co.,363Md.445,467(2001).InGreythequestionbeforetheCourt '"( _ waswhetherafindingtopayrestitutionafteraguiltyfindinginacriminalcasecouldform (o$* thebasisofagarnishmentofthedefendantsautomobileinsurance.Theanswerwas no. *2&, TheCourtfoundthatthejudgmentforrestitutiondidnotbecomea judgmentfor e compensatorydamagesarisingoutofamotorvehicleaccident,andpointedoutthatmany ( issues(suchascontributorynegligence)involvedinacivilcasearenotlitigatedinacriminal  restitutionfinding.  I  XK|TheexceptionsdiscussedinGreyarestatedslightlydifferentin28ofthe C  Restatement. Althoughanissue[was]actuallylitigatedanddeterminedbyavalidand    finaljudgment,andthedetermination[was]essentialtothejudgment...collateralestoppel d  doesnotbarrelitigationwhere '  f8 ` (3)Anewdeterminationoftheissueiswarrantedbydifferences !  inthequalityorextensivenessoftheproceduresfollowedinthe  twocourtsor...;or~` x` x  H 8 ` (4)Thepartyagainstwhompreclusionissoughthada w significantlyheavierburdenofpersuasionwithrespecttothe X issueintheinitialactionthaninthesubsequentaction;the 9 burdenhasshiftedtohisadversary;ortheadversaryhasa  significantlyheavierburdenthanhehadinthefirstaction;f` x` x  XRestatement(Second)ofJudgments28(1982). + ApplicationofLawtotheFacts %  XKhodorarguesthatonlythethirdpartissatisfied,i.e.,heagreesthathewasaparty S totheFederalLitigationandthatheisapartytotheMalpracticeAction.Withoutresolving {  alloftheissuespresentedbytheparties,thisCourtwilldenythemotiontodismissbecause >!" Khodordidnothavea fairopportunitytobeheardontheissueofWhitefordsalleged #$ malpracticeintheFederalLitigation. FnFn $_ & ItisimportanttokeepinmindthatthedecisiontodismissKhodorscaseandimpose Y&!( sanctionsagainsthimwasmadeattheMay8,2002hearingwhenWhitefordstillrepresented (#* Khodor.#Fn Fna# FnFnThus,Whiteforddoesnot,andcouldnot,arguethatanyfindingsmadeatthat )z%, hearinghaveanycollateralestoppeleffectonKhodorsabilitytofilethisclaim.Insteadthe +='. findingsonwhichWhitefordrelyarethosemadeatamotionforreconsiderationofthe e decisiontodismissKhodorscase,andtheCourtsdecisiontoimposesanctionsonhim. ( #Fn Fn#Adeterminationmadeonamotionforreconsiderationisproblematicbothbecause X theburdenofproofontheproponentofthemotionisextremelyhigh"abuseofdiscretion!   andbecausetheproceduresavailabletopresenttheissuestobedecidedareseverelylimited. C  Proceduresinthesecondactionthatwerenotavailableinthefirstactionthatmayleadto    differentresultsinclude suchproceduresasdiscoverydevicesandplenaryasdistinctfrom d  summaryhearing.Restatement(Second)ofJudgments29cmt.d . FnFn '  First,theburdenofprooffortheproponentonamotionforreconsiderationis !  extremelyhigh.Amotionforreconsideration isarequestforextraordinaryreliefthatmay  begrantedonlyuponashowingofexceptionalcircumstances.Sandersv.ClemcoIndus., B 862F.2d161,169n.14(8thCir.1998)(citationomitted).Thedecisiontograntordenya j motionforreconsiderationiscommittedtothecourtsdiscretion,#Fn Fn)# FnFnRenfrov.CityofEmporia, - 732F.Supp.1116,11171118(D.Kan.1990),andisreviewedbyanappellatecourtonthe  basisofanabuseofdiscretion.#Fn Fn# FnFnId.#Fn Fn# FnFnԀThereforethedistrictcourthadanextremelybroad N rangeinwhichtooperatethatwasimmunefromreversalandthusdifficultforKhodorto v challenge. 9   f8 ` Whenadistrictcourtisvestedwithdiscretionastoacertain !i" matter,itisnotrequiredbylawtomakea#Fn Fn׏# FnFnparticular#Fn Fn# FnFnԀdecision. "J# Rather,thedistrictcourtisempoweredtomakeadecisionof #+$ #Fn Fnޑ# FnFnits#Fn Fn# FnFnԀchoosingthatfallswithinarangeofpermissibledecisions. q$ % Adistrictcourt"abuses"or"exceeds"thediscretionaccordedto R% & itwhen(1)itsdecisionrestsonanerroroflaw...oraclearly 3&!' erroneousfactualfinding,#Fn Fnݒ# FnFnԀor(2)itsdecision...cannotbe '"( locatedwithintherangeofpermissibledecisions.#Fn Fn<# FnFnԀ#Fn Fn# FnFnfː'#)` x` x  XZervosv.VerizonNewYork,Inc#Fn Fn0# FnFn. 252F.3d163,1689 (2dCir.2001)(footnotesomitted);#Fn Fnו# FnFnԀ )%%+ seealso#Fn FnY# FnFnԀ#Fn Fn# FnFnEastwayConstr.Corp.v.CityofN.Y.,#Fn Fn# FnFnԀ821F.2d121,123(2dCir.1987)( The M+&- conceptofdiscretionimpliesthatadecisionislawfulatanypointwithintheouterlimitsof e therangeofchoicesappropriatetotheissueathand;atthesametime,adecisionoutside ( thoselimitsexceedsor,asitisinfelicitouslysaid,'abuses'allowablediscretion.);United  StatesCircuitJudgeJosephT.Sneed,#Fn Fnp# FnFnTrialCourtDiscretion:ItsExercisebyTrialCourts  I anditsReviewbyAppellateCourts,#Fn Fnu# FnFnԀAddresstotheJudgesoftheSecondCircuit(Apr.19, q  1982)( Tohave#Fn Fn&# FnFndiscretion#Fn Fnɚ# FnFnԀistohave#Fn Fn# FnFnchoice.#Fn Fni# FnFnԀTohavechoiceistobeabletochooseone 4   courseofactionoveroneormoreotherswith#Fn Fn# FnFnimmunity#Fn Fnh# FnFnԀfromreversalbyahighercourt   becauseofthe#Fn Fn# FnFncourseselected.Therangeofchoiceisdeterminedbythenumberof U  permissiblecoursesofactionthatexist.)(emphasisinoriginal)#Fn Fn;#. }  X FnFnKhodorwasnotpresentattheMay8,2002hearingwheretheoriginaldecisionwas  madetodismissthecase.DuringthathearingWhitefordplacedtheblameformostofthe p discoveryfailureonKhodor: 3 f8 ` #Fn FnB#Mr.Barnes:0` x` x***Sowehaveemailswith....thatImtoldby - myclient,thisisexactlywhatweused... FnFnxx @(**** s 8 ` #Fn FnF# FnFnMr.Barnes:0` x` x****Andagaintheyareinaformatheadvisesme = wasusedbyLHDwhenheworkedforthem.  So"dxx @(****#Fn Fnߠ# FnFnԈ . 8 ` #Fn Fn# FnFnMr.Barnes:0` x` xAndbasically,hisexplanation,...,asbestasI  canunderstanditisthis......#Fn Fng# FnFnt xx @(*****  >! 8 ` #Fn Fn9# FnFnMr.Barnes:0` x` xWell,hesarticulatedthattomehefeelshes m!" producedtothemallthe....Andhispositionwas, N"# well,[Hethengoesontosayhisclientisa /#$ UkranianandinapersonalfightwiththePlaintiff $% andthenexplains,fromhisclientsperspective $ & whyhehasnotproduceddocuments]*** AndI %m!' havecommunicatedtomyclientthatitis!in &R"( tryingtomakehimunderstandhowoursystem '3#) works...itisobviouslymyjobtocommunicate y($* thattohimandIvedonemybesttodoso....#Fn Fnӣ# FnFnZ)$+xx  $*%, fl XThuswhenthecrucialfindingwasmade,Khodordidnothaveanopportunitytotellhisside *&- ofthestory.s #  5      ׀Thereafter,atthemotionforreconsideration,hewasrequiredtoconvincethe e courtthatwhathadalreadybeendecidedwaswrong,i.e.,thatthecourthadmadeamistake. ( Thatwasa#Fn Fn#significantlyhigher FnFnԀburdenthantheburdenhefacesintheMalpracticeAction  whereheneedonlyconvincethefactfinderthatitismorelikelysothannotso. #Fn FnA# FnFnԀMaryland  I PatternJuryInstructions,MPJICv1:7(4thed.2002).#Fn Fn*# Fn    Ԁ# Fn   ##Fn Fnߪ# FnFnԀThus [t]oapplyissuepreclusion. x  ..wouldbetohold,ineffect,that[Khodor]...wouldalsohavelost[intheFederal ;   Litigation]had...[theburdenofproofbeenmorelikelysothannotso].#Fn FnE#ԀRestatement   (Second)ofJudgments28cmt.f. FnFnThatisafindingoffacttobemadebythefactfinder.#Fn Fnݬ# \   XJ FnFnSecond,the#Fn Fn}# FnFnmotionforreconsiderationwasinallrespectsasummaryproceedingand V  intheMalpracticeActionthereareproceduressuchasdiscoveryandfullexaminationof  witnessesthatcouldbe significantlyinfluentialindeterminationoftheissue.#Fn Fn˭#ԀId.at29 w cmtd FnFn .WhitefordarguesthatKhodorcouldhavepresentedwitnessesduringthemotionfor : reconsiderationhearinghadhiscounselchosentodoso.However,itisnotclearwhether b thefederalcourtwouldhavepermittedwitnesses.#Fn Fnp#JudgeBlakeindicatedshe would % considerarequestfortestimonyonparticularissues.Considerationisnotapromisethat  itwillbepermitted.Furthermorethere FnFnwereotherproceduralobstaclestothepresentation F ofthefactsduringthemotionforreconsiderationthatarenotpresentinthe_ Malpractice n   Action#Fn Fn#.KhodorscounselwasconcernedthathavingMr.Barnestestifywouldraiseattorney 1"" clientprivilegeissuesthatcouldharmhimevenifthemotionforreconsiderationwas #$ granted. %R!& f8 ` ...havingMr.Barnescalledasawitnesswillsignificantly L'"( escalatethislitigationandcreatetheneedforaminitrialthat -(#) _R 9   willraisecomplexprivilegeandotherpracticalissuesforthe e Courtandallcounsel.Asitsitsnow,counselhaveagreedthat F theinformationanddocumentsbeforetheCourtmayproperly ' beconsideredinspiteoftheattorneyclientprivilege.Beyond  that,thereisnoagreementaboutthecomplexprivilegeissues  andMr.Khodorwillactivelyprotect_ unwaived_ ԀprivilegeifMr. e Barnesiscalledtotestify.f F` x` x  XThisconcernwaslegitimatebecauseoncetheprivilegewaswaived,Khodor,ifhewonthe @  motion,wouldbedisadvantagedsolelybecauseofhisattorneysmalpractice.Incontrast,    theissueofwaiverisnowgonesincetheprivilegeiswaivedbytheverynatureofthese a  proceedings. $    Third,thehearingwasintendedtotakeonlytwohoursandwhilecounselmayhave   beensuccessfulinobtainingadditionaltimeforthehearing,ifwitnesseswerecalled, | Khodorscounselwantedafullhearingasopposedtoasummaryone.InfactKhodors ? counselmadeclearthatdiscoverybeforewitnesseswerecalledwouldbecrucial. g  X,f8 ` ...iftheCourtallowsMr.Barnestobecalledasawitness,we  wouldrequestthatthecurrentscheduleforthehearingbe x amended.WewillneedtheoptionofcallingMr.Khodorasa Y witnessuponthecompletionofMr.Barnestestimony,and : argumentsofthemanypendingmotionsanddirectandcross  examinationofwitnesseswilllikelylastwellbeyondthe a currentlyallottedtwohourperiod.Inaddition,apostponement B maybeinorderasassignedcounselwillneedtosubpoena # additionaldocumentationandrecordsfromWhiteford[]    regardingMr.Barnescompletebillingrecordforallofhis  ! clientsaswellasallphonerecordsduringthetimeperiodin !a" question.Suchmaterialswouldbecrucialinthecross "B# examinationofMr.Barnesbecausehisdirecttestimonywould ##$ likelyleadtoassertionsbyMr.Barnesofhowmuchofhistime i$ % hedevotedtoMr.Khodorscase.J% &` x` x  &!' fo  TheseconcernswerealljustifiedanditwouldnotbefairtobindKhodortofactualfindings &y"( madeinthenarrowconfinesofthemotionforreconsideration. (<$* Fourth,JudgeBlakecould,andprobablydid,relyuponhearsayevidencethatwould 6*%, nothavebeenadmissibleonamotionforsummaryjudgmentorattrial.Intheirpleadings +'. andatthehearinginoppositiontothemotionforreconsideration,LHDscounselmade e severalreferencestoinformationhereceivedfromBarnesconcerningstatementsmadeby ( KhodortoBarnes.ThusinthepleadingsLHDscounselargued:  f8 ` jFnFn[_ W]hile_ ԀBarneshasdeclinedgenerallytodiscussKhodors   allegationsagainsthim,heinformedundersignedcounsel... a  that1)hespecificallyadvisedKhodoragainstdeletingor B  destroyinganyinformationonLHDscomputerandthattodo #   socouldbeconsidereddestructionofevidence,2)hediscussed    theConsentOrderwithKhodor,whowouldnotlistentohim,3)   KhodoraccusedBarnesof workingfortheothersidewhen a  BarnestriedtoexplaindiscoveryKhodorsobligationsand B  resisted,4)Khodordraftedhisownanswerstointerrogatories, #  whichinmanycases,Barnesdidnotchangeoutofconcernfor i  misconstruingwhatKhodormeant,5)Khodorrefusedtoreturn J  LHDscomputerandpropertyuntilaftertheSanctionsOrder,6) + KhodornevertoldBarnesthathehaddisabledthedesignfiles   sothatLHDcouldnotopenthem,orthathelaterreformatted  theharddriveonLHDscomputerbeforehereturnedit. i AccordingtoBarnes,KhodorrefusedtoshowBarneshispatent J applicationuntilafterMay7,2002,whenthe_ USPTO_ Ԁapproval + noticewasissued.#FnjFnc#fEq ` x` x  XThishearsayevidencewouldnothavebeenadmissibleatatrialorinsupportofamotionfor  summaryjudgment. d  XThus,whileitisapparentthatJudgeBlakemadewhatareclearlyfactualfindingsthat, ^ ifappliedinthiscase,endthematter,itisalsoapparentthatthefindingsintheFederal ! Litigationweremadeonarecordthatwasmorethancompleteforpurposesofamotionfor  ! reconsideration,butthatwouldbewhollyinadequateforamotionforsummaryjudgmentor "B# attrial. FnFnԀTherefore,#Fn Fn$# FnFnԀthisCourtconcludesthatbasedontheratherlimitedevidentiarycontext j$ % ofthemotionforreconsiderationandthetypeofevidencerelieduponbytheCourt,Khodor -&!' neverhadafullandfairopportunitytolitigatetheissuessurroundinghislegalmalpractice '#) claimandthattheMalpracticeAction#Fn Fnq# FnFnwillaffordKhodor opportunitiesinthepresentation )N%+ anddeterminationoftheissue[ofWhitefordslegalmalpractice]thatwerenotavailable[on v+'- themotionforreconsiderationintheFederalLitigation]andcouldlikelyresultintheissue 9-(/ beingdifferentlydecided.#Fn Fn#ԀGrey,363Md.at467(citationomitted). e Finally,adifferentresultisnotrequiredbecauseJudgeBlakeconsideredKhodors  decisiontoreformattheharddriveofLHDscomputerindenyingthemotionfor X reconsideration,andthereisnoevidencethatWhitefordplayedanyroleinthatdecision.   Khodorsallegationofmalpracticeconcernsactionsthatoccurredbeforetheharddrivewas C  reformatted.JudgeBlakesdecisiontodismissKhodorscasewasmadeatthehearingon    May8,2002althoughtheorderwasnotsigneduntilMay20,2002.Khodorreformattedthe d  harddriveafewdaysafterthehearing.WhileitisclearthatJudgeBlakeconsideredthe '  reformattingindenyingthemotionforreconsideration,thereisnoevidencethatherdecision O  todismisswasbasedonwhatKhodordidaftertheMay8thhearing.Noristhereevidence  thatJudgeBlakewasawareofthereformattingwhenshesignedtheorderonMay20th. p Therefore,thefactthatKhodorreformattedtheharddriveonMay14thisnotevidencethat 3 hisactionscontributedtothecourtsdecisiononMay8thtodismisshisclaims.SeeRoyal [ Ins.Co.v.Miles&_ Stockbridge_ ,133F.Supp.2d747,755(D.Md.2001)( [_ A]ssuming_ Ԁthe  factsandallinferencestherefrominthelightmostfavorableto[defendantlawfirm],the | defenseofcontributorynegligenceisnotavailablebecauseanynegligenceonthepartof[the ? plaintiff]occurredwellafter[thelawfirms]negligence.). g      CONCLUSION  !" EForallthereasonsstatedabove,thisCourtwillissueanorderdenyingthemotionto #0$ dismissorinthealternativeforsummaryjudgment. X% &  XfDated:June13,20053(#________________________ &"(  X62(#JudgeEvelynOmegaCannon 'R#) fD ($*  X   `   * Fn.blRKhodor Summary Judgment Opinion.Final.wpdbKhodorSummaryJudgmentOpinion.Final.wpd/  #Fn *f#