Deposition Scheduling: Hawkins v. Ajmera 2
The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog examines Maryland appellate opinions in medical malpractice cases. This is the second post in a series on an unreported opinion by the Appellate Court of Maryland. The case is Hawkins v. Ajmera, No. 1343 (January 27, 2026). Scheduling expert depositions during medical injury litigation normally does not cause major issues. This court opinion from the Appellate Court of Maryland highlights how managing discovery deadlines can impact a lawsuit. This post examines the court’s ruling regarding scheduling an expert witness deposition and a scheduling order in a medical malpractice case.
In Part 1, I examined the court’s ruling on initial incomplete medical records and expert opinions.
Factual Background on Medical Malpractice Deposition Scheduling
Following initial record disclosures, the plaintiff retained a licensed physician to review the file and provide expert witness testimony. The trial court issued a formal scheduling order establishing a firm deadline for witness depositions. Specifically, the order required the parties to complete all expert depositions by May 31, 2024.
Before trial, between February and May 2024, defense counsel made multiple attempts to schedule the deposition of the plaintiff’s expert. The plaintiff’s legal team remained largely unresponsive during this timeframe. Counsel eventually provided potential dates on May 22, and both sides agreed to conduct the deposition on June 12. However, on June 10—just two days before the agreed-upon date—the plaintiff’s counsel abruptly cancelled the proceeding. Counsel stated that the scheduling order’s May 31 deadline had already expired.
In response, the defense filed a motion requesting that the court strike the expert witness as a discovery sanction and grant summary judgment. The defense emphasized that the plaintiff failed to make the key witness available within the established timeline.
Deposition Timeline
- October 2023: The trial court issues a scheduling order setting May 31, 2024, as the deadline for expert depositions.
- February–May 2024: Defense counsel repeatedly requests deposition dates, but the plaintiff provides minimal response.
- May 22, 2024: The parties agree to hold the expert deposition on June 12, 2024.
- June 10, 2024: The plaintiff cancels the deposition, citing the passed May 31 deadline.
Parties’ Arguments
The plaintiff argued that striking the expert as a sanction was entirely inappropriate. Counsel contended that the scheduling order explicitly prohibited post-deadline depositions without a court order. Furthermore, the plaintiff asserted that defense counsel failed to monitor the scheduling order deadlines, causing the parties to select a post-deadline date in the first place.
The defendants maintained that the delay resulted directly from the plaintiff’s prolonged lack of responsiveness. They argued that allowing an expert to testify at trial without giving the defense an opportunity to depose the witness would cause severe prejudice. The defendants asserted that striking the witness was necessary because the plaintiff failed to fulfill discovery obligations.
The Court’s Ruling
The trial court declined to strike the expert immediately as a discovery sanction. Instead, the court ordered the plaintiff to make the expert available for a post-deadline deposition prior to trial. The judge observed that the plaintiff’s nonresponsiveness caused the initial scheduling delay. The court also found that cancelling the deposition two days before the agreed date was not done in good faith. However, recognizing that striking the expert would effectively end the plaintiff’s case, the court determined that ordering a late deposition balanced the interests of both parties.
The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed this ruling, holding that the trial court acted well within its broad discretion. The appellate panel reviewed key procedural factors, including whether the violation was technical or substantial, the underlying reasons for the delay, and the potential prejudice to both sides. The court concluded that ordering the deposition mitigated prejudice to the defense while giving the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to keep the case alive.
Commentary by Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on Deposition Scheduling
As a practical matter, the plaintiff was never going to avoid putting the expert up for a deposition. Medical malpractice claims depend heavily on expert testimony, and defense attorneys possess a right to cross-examine those experts before trial. Expecting to shield a core liability witness from a deposition on a technical scheduling issue is simply unrealistic in modern civil litigation.
Cancelling a deposition because the date falls after the scheduling order deadline, in these specific circumstances, was never going to work. The record showed that the plaintiff’s own nonresponsiveness contributed directly to missing the initial deadline. Attempting to use a deadline as a shield after causing the delay creates an unfavorable impression before the court.
When scheduling conflicts or oversight push a deposition past a court deadline, the proper remedy is communication rather than unilateral cancellation. Parties should proceed with the deposition and file a joint motion to amend the scheduling order. Trial judges prefer practical solutions that allow discovery to move forward. Cancelling a deposition at the last minute rarely prevents the deposition from occurring.
You can read additional Blog posts on issues involving Discovery in other cases. Also, the following posts concern scheduling order issues:
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.