Union Carbide Corp. v. Valentine

• Decision Date: 06 December 2018
• Docket Number: No. 1455,1455
• Parties: UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION v. RONALD VALENTINE, et al.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION v. RONALD VALENTINE, et al.

No. 1455

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2017

December 6, 2018

Circuit Court for Baltimore City

Case No. 24-X-16-000162

UNREPORTED

Wright, Graeff, Shaw Geter, JJ.

Opinion by Wright, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

This appeal arises out of an asbestos products liability action filed by the legal heirs of Ronald Valentine ("appellees") against Union Carbide Corporation ("appellant") in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Union Carbide appeals the circuit court's order granting appellees' motion to compel, which requires Union Carbide to make specific discovery disclosures.¹ Union Carbide presents the following questions for our review, which we have renumbered and consolidated for clarity:²

1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal?

2. Whether the circuit court erred by failing to protect joint defense agreements from discovery?

3. Whether the circuit court erred by failing to protect correspondence between Union Carbide and a consulting expert from discovery?

4. Whether the circuit court erred by failing to give effect to protective and sealing orders issued by the Supreme Court of New York?

For the reasons to follow, we answer the first question in the negative, decline to reach Union Carbide's other questions, and affirm the circuit court's order.

BACKGROUND

On November 9, 2016, appellees filed an amendment by interlineation to add Union Carbide as a party-defendant to a pending lawsuit that appellees filed about seven months earlier.³ On November 10, 2016, appellees served discovery on Union Carbide. Appellees specifically sought discovery in three areas that Union Carbide objected to: (1) joint defense agreements; (2) communication on scientific tests and studies funded by or performed at Union Carbide's request; and (3) insurance coverage litigation between Union Carbide and its insurance carriers.

Though the deadline for Union Carbide to respond to appellees' discovery request was December 26, 2016, Union Carbide did not timely respond. Rather, on March 2, 2017, Union Carbide served appellees a document entitled "Union Carbide Corporation'sObjections and Responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Document Production Requests . . . ," objecting to appellees' discovery requests in their entirety.⁴

Appellees subsequently filed a motion to compel Union Carbide to "produce fully responsive answers to interrogatories and documents."⁵ Union Carbide opposed the motion, and appellees subsequently filed a reply. On July 19, 2017, the circuit court heard argument on the motion to compel discovery responses from Union Carbide.

On August 7, 2017, the circuit court issued an order granting appellees' motion to compel and denying appellees' opposition to the motion to compel. After the circuit court's order was issued, Union Carbide communicated to appellees "that it [had] no agreement for joint representation in this case." Additionally, "Union Carbide [provided] [a]ppellees with the exact amounts it paid [its consulting expert]; the pages of raw data and protocols for [the expert's studies]; its retainer agreement with [its expert]; and a privilege log identifying communications between [Union Carbide] and its counsel." The communications were not disclosed.

Ten days later, on August 17, 2017, Union Carbide filed a motion for clarification and protective order. The protective order related to the three outstanding materials that appellees sought: (1) joint defense agreements; (2) communication on scientific tests and studies funded by or performed at Union Carbide's request; and (3) insurance coverage litigation between Union Carbide and its insurance carriers. On September 11, 2017, the circuit court denied Union Carbide's motion.

On September 20, 2017, Union Carbide filed a notice of appeal with this Court, appealing the circuit court's August 7, 2017, and September 11, 2017 orders. On October 11, 2017, appellees filed a motion to dismiss this appeal contending that the appeal was untimely and that the orders at issue were non-appealable interlocutory discovery orders. This Court denied appellees' motion to dismiss without prejudice and with leave to seek dismissal of Union Carbide's appeal in appellees' brief.

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction Over the Appeal

Appellees assert that this Court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal for two reasons. First, appellees aver that Union Carbide did not timely file its notice of appeal, rendering it "time-barred." Second, appellees contend that the circuit court's ruling is a "non-appealable interlocutory discovery ruling." In response, Union Carbide argued that its appeal was timely filed and that the appeal meets the requirements of the collateral order doctrine.

A. Timeliness of the Appeal

According to Md. Rule 8-202(c), "[i]n a civil action, when a timely motion is filed pursuant to [Md.] Rule . . . 2-534,⁶ the notice of appeal shall be filed within 30 days after entry of . . . an order . . . disposing" of a Md. Rule 2-534 motion. In other words, when a motion is timely filed under Md. Rule 2-534, "the time the [party has] to note an appeal is suspended until after the motion is decided." Pickett v. Noba, 114 Md. App. 552, 556 (1997).

Pursuant to the Maryland Rules, the circuit court's August 10, 2017 order was an "action decided by the court," as it determined the parties' rights as it pertained to the materials sought in discovery. See Md. Rule 2-534; see also B&K Rentals & Sales Co., Inc. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co., 73 Md. App. 530, 534 (1988) (explaining that the court's ruling on a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was "an action decided by the court.") (rev'd on other grounds, 319 Md. 127 (1990)). In response to the order, Union Carbide timely filed its motion for clarification and protective order onAugust 17, 2017. Though it was not labeled a "motion to alter or amend," we will treat Union Carbide's motion as a Md. Rule 2-534 motion. See White v. Prince George's County, 163 Md. App. 129, 140 (2005) ("[A] motion to revise a court's judgment, 'however labeled, filed within ten days after the entry of a judgment will be treated as a [Md.] Rule 2-534 motion . . . ."') (citation omitted). The circuit court disposed of Union Carbide's motion in its September 11, 2017 order. Because Union Carbide's [Md.] Rule 2-534 motion was timely filed, Union Carbide had 30 days from the disposition of that motion to file its notice of appeal of the August 10, 2017, and the September 11, 2017 orders. Union Carbide complied with this deadline when it filed its notice of appeal on September 20, 2017. Therefore, we disagree with appellees' assertion that this appeal was time-barred and conclude that the appeal was timely filed.

B. Application of the Collateral Order Doctrine

According to Md. Code (1973, 2013 Repl. Vol.), Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article) ("CJP") § 12-301, "a party may appeal from a final judgment entered in a civil . . . case by a circuit court." This right "exists from a final judgment entered by a court in the exercise of original, special, limited, statutory jurisdiction, unless in a particular case the right of appeal is expressly denied by law." Id. Generally, "the right to seek appellate review of a trial court's ruling ordinarily must await the entry of a final judgment that disposes of all claims against all parties[.]" Salvagno v. Frew, 388 Md.605, 615 (2005).⁷ This is known as a the "final judgment rule." Mitchel Properties v. Real Estate Title, 62 Md. App. 473, 482 (1985).

However, the Court of Appeals has explained that there are only three exceptions to the final judgment rule: "appeals from interlocutory orders specifically allowed by statute; immediate appeals permitted under [Md.] Rule 2-602; and appeals from interlocutory rulings allowed under the common law collateral order doctrine." Id; see also Addison v. State, 173 Md. App. 138, 153 (2007). Since neither party contends that either of the first two exceptions apply, our analysis will focus on the application of the collateral order doctrine. This Court has previously explained the collateral order doctrine as follows:

The collateral order doctrine, recognized by the Supreme Court in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corporation, 337 U.S. 541 (1949), permits the prosecution of an appeal from a narrow class of orders, referred to as collateral orders, which are offshoots of the principal litigation in which they are issued and which are immediately appealable as final judgments without regard to the posture of the case. For a non-final judgment to be appealable under this narrow collateral order exception, each of the following four elements must be satisfied:

(1) it must conclusively determine the disputed question;

(2) it must resolve an important issue;

(3) it must be completely separate from the merits of the action; and

(4) it must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.

In Maryland, the four requirements of the collateral order doctrine are very strictly applied, and appeals under the doctrine may be entertained only in extraordinary circumstances.

Addison, 173 Md. App. at 153-54 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

Maryland's appellate courts have made it clear that the right to seek an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine is "a limited one." Tamara A. v. Montgomery County Dept. of Health and Human Servs., 407 Md. 180, 191 (2009). "[I]n the civil context, it is limited, at best, to an immunity that can be resolved as a pure issue of law, without the court having to assume any material facts or inferences that are in dispute." Id. (citation omitted).

When applied to discovery orders, the right to seek an interlocutory appeal is...