Denial of Scheduling Amendment: Estate v. Spring
The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog features Maryland appellate opinions in personal injury cases, where the issues also can arise in medical malpractice cases. In this post, I address an appeal from a trial court’s denial of a motion for amendment to a scheduling order. The case is the Appellate Court of Maryland unreported opinion in Estate of Melissa I. Taylor v. Spring, No. 140, November 26, 2025.
Factual Background on Denial of Scheduling Order Amendment
The plaintiff brought suit in the Circuit Court for Talbot County for a car accident and resulting permanent injuries to his foot, and lost business profits. (Op. at 2-3).
The circuit court’s scheduling order designated June 2022 for the defense expert witness disclosures and a discovery cut-off of October 21, 2022. However, the defense did not designate experts by the deadline. (Id. at 3).
Eight days before the close of discovery, the parties filed a joint motion to modify the scheduling order based on the plaintiff’s lawyer’s medical leave. The court granted the motion, designated November 4 as the new deadline for disclosing the defense expert witness, and January 19, 2023, as the latest discovery cut-off. (Id. at 3-4).
Ten months after being served with interrogatories, the plaintiff provided his answers. The defense then deposed him in December. However, the defense did not designate an expert by the November deadline. (Id. at 4).
Almost 2 months after the second discovery deadline, the defense filed a consent motion to extend the scheduling order. The motion stated that the parties had been attempting to settle the case before conducting extensive discovery but had been unable to do so. The court issued a denial of the scheduling order amendment and scheduled the trial for January 2024. (Id.).
The defense filed a motion for reconsideration, noting that the extension would not prejudice either party since the trial was 10 months away. The court also denied this motion. (Id. at 4-5).
The jury then returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for over $450,000. Consequently, the defense appealed. (Id. at 1).
Appellate Court of Maryland
An abuse-of-discretion standard governs discovery decisions. (Id. at 8). The Appellate Court concluded that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in the denial of the scheduling order amendment because it could have reasonably found that the defense had not substantially complied with the scheduling order. (Id. at 10).
The circuit court reviewed the dates of various activities and concluded that no surprising information had developed. (Id. at 12). Applying the Taliaferro factors, the Appellate Court found that the defendant did not explain why it did not identify experts. There was no evidence of a good-faith effort at compliance. (Id. at 14).
The Appellate Court rejected the defense’s blame on the plaintiff’s delay in responding to interrogatories. The court said ultimately the burden falls on the defendant to prepare its defense. (Id. at 15).
The defense failed to engage in trial preparation outside of deposing the plaintiff. It waited until months past the discovery deadline to request the second extension. Settlement discussions do not override the duty to prepare for trial if the parties do not settle. (Id. at 16).
The Appellate Court cautioned that modification of scheduling orders, particularly for a second time, is generally reserved for extraordinary circumstances. (Id. at 17). The plaintiff’s late interrogatory answers, additional particulars revealed in his deposition, and engaging in settlement discussions were not extraordinary circumstances warranting a second modification. (Id.).
The Appellate Court concluded that the defense did not substantially comply with the scheduling order. As a result, the court did not reach the question of whether the defense provided good cause for noncompliance. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denial of the scheduling order amendment. (Id.).
Commentary By Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on Denial of Scheduling Order Amendment
This denial of the scheduling order amendment is a very tough result for the defense lawyer and client. This opinion is a reminder of the very deferential standard applied to the trial court. An appeals court will uphold a trial judge’s strict enforcement of scheduling order deadlines, even when many trial judges would have been more lenient.
Even though the plaintiff had significantly delayed in providing answers to interrogatories, the defense failed to show that it had taken every possible action to comply with the scheduling order, given the information that it had.
Two additional aspects also can be traps in situations like this. The plaintiff specifically agreed to every request made by the defense. This opinion, however, is a reminder that trial judges are not only not bound by such agreements but often can act against them.
Lack of Prejudice Not Enough
The most challenging aspect of this denial of scheduling order amendment was that, when the trial court scheduled the trial, it was 10 months away. That time was enough for the parties to complete discovery without delaying the case. There also was no apparent prejudice to the plaintiff from the defense’s previous failures to comply with the scheduling order.
In many other cases, trial judges would have allowed the amendment to the scheduling order because it would not have delayed the case. This opinion, however, is a stark reminder that a party cannot rely on an extension in such circumstances.
The bottom line for this denial of scheduling order amendment is that a party that fails to show substantial compliance with a scheduling order is not in a position to reverse a trial judge who declines an extension.
You can read other blog posts on cases involving Discovery and Procedure.
Mark Kopec is a top-rated Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. Contact us at 800-604-0704 to speak directly with Attorney Kopec in a free consultation. The Kopec Law Firm is in Baltimore and helps clients throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. Thank you for reading the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog.