Hudson v. Housing Authority

• Decision Date: 07 November 2007
• Docket Number: No. 24, Sept. Term, 2007.,24, Sept. Term, 2007.
• Citation: 935 A.2d 395,402 Md. 18
• Parties: Charles HUDSON v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BALTIMORE CITY.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

935 A.2d 395

402 Md. 18

Charles HUDSON v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BALTIMORE CITY.

No. 24, Sept. Term, 2007.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

November 7, 2007.

Theodosia Saffo of Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., Baltimore, for petitioner.

Jon E. Offley (Jannai C. Goslee of Housing Authority of Baltimore City, Office of Legal Affairs, Baltimore), on brief, for respondent.

Argued before BELL, C.J., RAKER, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ALAN M. WILNER (Retired, specially assigned) and DALE R. CATHELL (Retired, specially assigned), JJ.

HARRELL, J.

By issuing a Writ of Certiorari, on the petition of Charles Hudson, to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, we implicitly expressed our desire to consider whether limited pretrial discovery is allowed, under the applicable Maryland Rules, in a "Breach of Lease" (Maryland Code (2003), Real Property Article, § 8-402.1) action brought in the District Court of Maryland. Before we may reach that issue, however, we must confront whether the Circuit Court appropriately entertained, under the common law collateral order doctrine, the interlocutory appeal taken by Hudson's landlord, the Housing Authority of Baltimore City, from the District Court's ruling that limited discovery was permitted. Although we shall conclude that the collateral order doctrine does not justify that interlocutory appeal, as that doctrine is of extremely limited application in the resolution of discovery disputes, given the import of the merits of the certiorari question, we shall address the substantive issue, albeit as considered dicta. It is our view that Maryland Rule 3-711¹ does not exclude in "Breach of Lease" actions brought in the District Court the limited discovery allowed under Maryland Rule 3-401(a).²

I.

The material facts are undisputed. Petitioner, Charles Hudson, resides in the Latrobe Housing Development, a subsidized housing project in Baltimore City. On 30 September 2005, the Housing Authority of Baltimore City (HABC), Respondent, which owns and operates more than ten thousand dwelling units in Baltimore City, including the Latrobe Housing Development, received a copy of a police report implicating Hudson in the alleged commission of a crime in his rental unit. The point of departure for the police report was that a suspect (not Hudson) carrying drugs ran into Hudson's dwelling. When police pursued the suspect, they reportedly observed in Hudson's rental unit a large, clear jar of drugs being used as a leg to support a bed. As a result, on 22 May 2006, HABC filed a form "Complaint and Summons Against Tenant in Breach of Lease," under Maryland Code (2003), Real Property Article, § 8-402.1, in the District Court of Maryland, sitting in Baltimore City. The complaint alleged that the above facts constituted the breach of several lease covenants prohibiting illegal and drug-related activities in the dwelling unit.

Trial was set for 12 June 2006. On 6 June 2006, Hudson, through counsel, served written interrogatories on HABC seeking the limited discovery afforded in District Court cases under Maryland Rule 3-401(a). The next day, Hudson sought a continuance of the trial to allow time for HABC to respond to the discovery request. A continuance of the trial date to after 18 August 2006 was granted on 12 June.³ On the same day, HABC filed a motion to strike the interrogatories on the ground that Maryland Rule 3-711 prohibits discovery in summary ejectment actions in the District Court. The court denied HABC's motion, ruling that Rule 3-711 does not apply to "Breach of Lease" cases. On 15 September 2006, the court also denied HABC's effort seeking reconsideration of its ruling having the effect of allowing the discovery initiative by Hudson.

HABC appealed to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on 25 September 2006 the District Court's interlocutory ruling as to discovery, ostensibly in accordance with Maryland Code, Real Property Article, § 8-402.1(b)(2).⁴,⁵ Specifically, HABC claimed that the District Court's discovery ruling was immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine and incorrect as a matter of law. The Circuit Court considered the matter on the record made in the District Court. After oral argument, the Circuit Court ruled that the appeal was taken properly under the collateral order doctrine. The Court further held that Rule 3-711 prohibited discovery in "Breach of Lease" cases in the District Court and, thus, reversed the District Court's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Hudson successfully petitioned us for a Writ of Certiorari. We shall consider de novo the Circuit Court's allowance of the interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine and its denial of discovery in a "Breach of Lease" case brought in the District Court, both purely legal determinations. Pickett v. Sears, Roebuck, and Co., 365 Md. 67, 77, 775 A.2d 1218, 1223 (2001).

II.

A.

We address, first, whether the District Court's allowance of limited discovery, over HABC's protest, was immediately appealable to the Circuit Court under the common law collateral order doctrine. We hold that it was not.

The general proposition in Maryland is that "to be appealable an order or judgment ordinarily must be final." Jackson v. State, 358 Md. 259, 266, 747 A.2d 1199, 1202 (2000). Appellate jurisdiction may not be exercised over a judgment considered interlocutory unless it falls within one of three delineated exceptions. See Salvagno v. Frew, 388 Md. 605, 615, 881 A.2d 660, 666 (2005). Appeals from certain types of interlocutory orders specifically are allowed by certain statute; immediate appeals are authorized from actions taken pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-602; and, appeals from interlocutory rulings are allowed under the common law collateral order doctrine. Id. The first and second exceptions are not implicated in the present case.

The collateral order doctrine permits a reviewing appellate court to treat as final, without consideration of the procedural posture of a case, a "narrow" class of interlocutory orders in "extraordinary circumstances." Ehrlich v. Grove, 396 Md. 550, 561-62, 914 A.2d 783, 791 (2007); In re Foley, 373 Md. 627, 634, 820 A.2d 587, 591 (2003). We have applied gingerly this doctrine to review actions completely separate from the merits of the litigation based on a "perceived necessity" of immediate appellate review. Ehrlich, 396 Md. at 562, 914 A.2d at 791 (quoting Dawkins v. Baltimore City Police Dep't, 376 Md. 53, 64, 827 A.2d 115, 121 (2003)). Of greatest import here, however, "`[t]his Court has consistently held that discovery orders, being interlocutory in nature, are not ordinarily appealable prior to a final judgment terminating the case in the trial court....' [G]enerally such orders do not meet the requirements of the collateral order doctrine." In re Foley, 373 Md. at 634, 820 A.2d at 591-92 (quoting Montgomery County v. Stevens, 337 Md. 471, 477, 654 A.2d 877, 880 (1995)). Only in the special circumstances where a litigant seeks to probe the individual thought process of a high level government official, acting in an administrative or investigatory decisional capacity, have we sanctioned immediate review of a trial court's disposition of a discovery dispute under the collateral order doctrine. See Ehrlich, 396 Md. at 572, 914 A.2d at 797 ("[A]n interlocutory appeal is appropriate under these extraordinary circumstances involving discovery orders directed to a high government official."); Stevens, 337 Md. at 477-79, 654 A.2d at 879-81; Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Patuxent Valley, 300 Md. 200, 210, 477 A.2d 759, 764 (1984) ("We reiterate, however, that our holding is a narrow one. Thus discovery orders, directed at other than high level government decision makers, are ordinarily not appealable in accordance with the general rule.").

The collateral order doctrine may apply when a decision of the lower court meets four conjunctive and strictly construed elements. Ehrlich, 396 Md. at 563, 914 A.2d at 792. If an interlocutory decision "(1) conclusively determines the disputed question, (2) resolves an important issue, (3) resolves an issue that is completely separate from the merits of the action, and (4) would be effectively unreviewable if the appeal had to await the entry of a final judgment," then the collateral order doctrine applies. Id., 914 A.2d at 791. Even were we to assume, for the sake of argument, that the District Court's decision to allow limited discovery in the present "Breach of Lease" case conclusively determined whether the interplay between Maryland Rules 3-401(a) and 3-711 permitted such discovery, and that such a determination resolved an important issue, we nevertheless would conclude that the District Court's discovery ruling met neither the third nor the fourth criterion of an immediately appealable collateral order.

Indeed, "[m]ost discovery orders do not comply with the third requirement of the collateral order doctrine, as they generally are not completely separate from the merits of the lawsuit. Instead a typical discovery order is aimed at ascertaining critical facts upon which the outcome of the controversy might depend." Addison v. State, 173 Md.App. 138, 156, 917 A.2d 1200, 1211 (2007) (quoting St. Joseph Medical Center, Inc. v. Cardiac Surgery Associates, P.A., 392 Md. 75, 87, 896 A.2d 304, 311 (2006); In re Foley, 373 Md. at 635, 820 A.2d at 587). Obviously, interrogatories inquiring into the underlying factual grounding of HABC's claim that Hudson breached his lease are critical to the ultimate determination of whether a breach occurred. Thus, the third requirement of an immediately appealable collateral order is not met in this case.

Finally, "discovery orders fail to meet the collateral order doctrine's fourth element as they are effectively reviewable on appeal from a final judgment. A party aggrieved by a discovery order and aggrieved by the final judgment may challenge the discovery ruling on appeal from a final...