Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Miriam Gladden, Petitioner v. Rayna Woodford, et al.

App.16a

relevant portion of the specific document, discovery

response, transcript of testimony (by page and line),

or other statement under oath that demonstrates the

dispute.” Md. Rule 2-501(b). Alternatively, the nonmoving party must file an affidavit explaining why

“the facts essential to justify the opposition cannot be

set forth,” in which case the court “may deny the

motion or order a continuance to permit affidavits to

be obtained or discovery to be conducted[.]”14 Md.

Rule 2-501(d); see also Clark v. O’Malley, 169 Md.App.

408, 420-21 (2006) (affirming grant of summary

judgment before the end of discovery where nonmoving party failed to identify genuine disputes of

material fact or file a Rule 2-501(d) affidavit).

In responding to the Woodfords’ motion for

summary judgment, Ms. Gladden did not support her

assertion that there was a genuine dispute of material

fact with any citations to valid material under Rule 2-

501(b). She also did not file a Rule 2-501(d) affidavit

explaining why she could not set forth the essential

facts. Instead, at the hearing, Ms. Gladden responded

simply that her need for future discovery on her

claims should preclude a grant of summary judgment

in favor of the Woodfords.

That, however, is insufficient. If Ms. Gladden had

wished to obtain that discovery, she could have sought

it-and she had several months in which to do so.

Specifically, Ms. Gladden filed her original complaint in

January 2021 and amended it in July 2021, relying

upon essentially the same alleged facts. The circuit

court’s hearing on the Woodfords’ motion did not occur

14 The court may also “enter any other order that justice

requires.” Md. Rule 2-501(d).

App.17a

until September 2021. As such, Ms. Gladden had

ample time to serve discovery material in an attempt

to develop the facts necessary to oppose summary

judgment, or at least to create a record supporting a

Rule 2-501(d) affidavit.

For example, Ms. Gladden could have served

interrogatories on the Woodfords, requests to produce

documents, and requests for admissions. See Md.

Rules 2-421, 2-422, 2-424; see also Md. Rule 2-401

(“[MJethods of discovery may be used in any

sequence[.]”). Had she done so, the Woodfords’

responses would have been due “within 30 days after

service of the request or within 15 days after the date

on which that party’s initial pleading or motion is

required, whichever is later.” See Md. Rules 2-421(b),

2-422(c), 2-424(b).15 Ms. Gladden also could have

15 There appears to be some ambiguity in Rules 2-421(b), 2-

422(c), and 2-424(b) as to the precise deadline for responding to

discovery requests. To explain, we first summarize the relevant

dates, then we note two possible interpretations of the relevant

rules. Under either interpretation, however, Ms. Gladden was

not precluded from at least seeking discovery here. As such, her

decision not to do so defeats her argument that summary

judgment was inappropriate because she needed time to conduct

discovery. Ms. Gladden filed her original complaint on January

26, 2021, with service of process on February 16, 2021. The

Woodfords then moved to dismiss on March 12, 2021. A hearing

on that motion was held on May 10, 2021, and the circuit court

entered an order that same day dismissing both of Ms. Gladden’s

claims and granting her leave to amend (except as to her

purported “self-dealing” claim). Ms. Gladden then filed her

amended complaint on July 8, 2021, and the Woodfords filed

another motion to dismiss (or for summary judgment) on July 23,

2021. The circuit court heard that motion on September 17, 2021.

Bearing those dates in mind, one interpretation of the relevant

discovery rules is that responses to interrogatories, requests for

production, and requests for admissions are due on the later of

App.18a

noticed the Woodfords’ depositions, or noticed (and

subpoenaed attendance at) the depositions of nonparties. See Md. Rule 2-411 (conferring the right to

take depositions without leave of court after “the

earliest day on which any defendant’s initial pleading

30 days after service, or 15 days after “the date on which .. . [the]

initial pleading or motion is required|[.}” Here, the Woodfords

were required to file an initial pleading or an initial motion by

March 18, 2021. See Md. Rule 2-321(a). Thus, the Woodfords’

responses to discovery requests would be due on the later of 30

days after Ms. Gladden served the requests, or on or about April

2, 2021. This means that Ms. Gladden could have served

discovery requests such that the Woodfords’ responses would

have been due well before the September 2021 hearing. A second

interpretation, however, would suggest that the Woodfords need

not have responded to discovery requests before that hearing.

Under this interpretation, because the filing of a motion to

dismiss automatically extends the deadline for answering the

complaint, see Md. Rule 2-321(c), it likewise extends the time for

answering discovery requests under Rules 2-421, 2-422, and 2-

424, Or, put in the language of the relevant discovery rules,

responses are due on the later of the following: 30 days after

service, 15 days after the “initial... motion is required[,]” or 15

days after the “initial pleading ...is required[.]” The deadline

for the Woodfords’ initial pleading was automatically extended

here by each of the Woodfords’ motions to dismiss. See Rule 2-

321(c). And in the period between May 10, 2021 and July 8, 2021-

after the circuit court dismissed both counts of Ms. Gladden’s

original complaint, and before she filed her amended complaintno answer could have been due because there was nothing to

answer. As such, the Woodfords would not have been required to

respond to discovery requests before the September 2021

hearing, regardless of when those requests were served. Here,

however, we need not opine on the preferable interpretation of

the relevant discovery deadlines. In the eight months between

the filing of Ms. Gladden’s initial complaint and the circuit

court’s September 2021 hearing, Ms. Gladden did not attempt to

seek any discovery from any source. Thus, neither interpretation

aids her argument.

App.19a

or motion is required[,]” with some caveats not

applicable here); Md. Rule 2-510 (use of subpoenas).

Even if depositions could not have been scheduled

before the circuit court's hearing, and even if Ms.

Gladden had not yet received discovery responses, Ms.

Gladden still would have been able to point to the

pending depositions and responses in a Rule 2-501(d)

affidavit, and request a denial of summary judgment

so that the facts could be developed.

Nevertheless, there is no indication in the record

that Ms. Gladden ever served any discovery material,

including noticing or subpoenaing any depositions.

See Md. Rule 2-401(d)(2) (a party serving discovery

material “promptly shall file with the court a notice”

that states the “the type of discovery material served,”

“the date and manner of service,” and “the party or

person served”). Indeed, at the hearing itself in

September 2021, Ms. Gladden appeared to concede

the point by referring only to prospective discovery in

the future, rather than any discovery material that

she had already served. In sum, Ms. Gladden did not

identify the material facts supporting her opposition

to summary judgment, she did not explain why she

could not yet set forth such facts, and she did not even

attempt to conduct any discovery. The circuit court

was correct to reject Ms. Gladden’s alleged need for

future discovery as a basis for denying summary

judgment. See Md. Rule 2-501; cf. Poole and Kent Co.

v. Equilease Assocs. I, 71 Md.App. 9, 19 (1987) (party

was not entitled to a delay in ruling on certain motions

when it “failed to avail itself of the discovery

procedures’).

Ms. Gladden next argues that the circuit court

erred in granting summary judgment because the

App.20a

Woodfords’ motion was not supported by any affidavit.

Generally, a motion for summary judgment must be

supported by affidavit if it is “based on facts not

contained in the record.”16 Md. Rules 2-501(a). The

Woodfords did not attach an affidavit to their motion,

but they were not required to do so because they did

not rely on any facts not already contained in the

record. Instead, they relied upon the allegations in

Ms. Gladden’s complaints and the documents attached

by Ms. Gladden to her complaints, including the 2011

deed showing that Ms. Dixon had conveyed the

Columbia Property so as to divest any interest held by

Ms. Gladden’s mother (and thus by Ms. Gladden

herself as a beneficiary of her mother’s estate). That

is, the Woodfords relied only upon the existing record,

including items placed into the record by Ms.

Gladden.17

In sum, the undisputed facts in the record show

that, in 2011, Ms. Dixon exercised her rights to convey

the Columbia Property and executed a new will-thus

divesting Ms. Gladden of any expected future or

inheritance interest. And Ms. Gladden does not

16 An affidavit is also required if the motion for summary

judgment is filed before the adverse party’s initial pleading or

motion is filed. Md. Rule 2-501(a).

17 We further note that the 2011 deed would also be a proper

subject of judicial notice because it is “not subject to reasonable

dispute” and is “capable of accurate and ready determination by

resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be

questioned.” See Md. Rule 5-201. For the same reasons, so would

Ms. Dixon’s 2011 will. That will had been filed with the Office of

the Register of Wills for Howard County upon opening Ms.

Dixon’s estate. Further, Ms. Gladden made no challenge to the

authenticity of the 2011 deed or will.

App.21a

challenge Ms. Dixon’s right to make that will and

conveyance, nor does she challenge the authenticity of

either. Of course, Ms. Gladden did allege that she

enjoyed a good relationship with Ms. Dixon, and that

there would be no reason for Ms. Dixon to fail to

provide for Ms. Gladden in a will or otherwise, other

than undue influence on the part of the Woodfords.18

But Ms. Gladden has not pointed to any facts in the

record that might tend to support her theory, nor has

she explained why she has failed to obtain any such

facts through discovery. The circuit court did not err

in granting summary judgment in favor of the

Woodfords.

II. The Circuit Court Did Not Err in Amending

Its Order to Grant Summary Judgment in

Favor of the Woodfords

Ms. Gladden next contends that the circuit court

erred in “revers[ing] its decision” by granting summary

judgment in favor of the Woodfords. The Woodfords

respond that the circuit court did not reverse any

decision; it merely corrected a clerical mistake that

erroneously indicated that summary judgment would

be entered in favor of Ms. Gladden. The Woodfords

further point out that Ms. Gladden did not file any

18 Ms. Gladden also levied several other allegations, including,

among other things, unseemly conduct and threatened litigation

by the Woodfords, eye-rolling by Ms. Woodford, and Ms. Dixon’s

2011 changes to the disposition of her property (by will and

conveyance) shortly after the death of Ms. Gladden’s mother.

Except for the timing of Ms. Dixon’s will and conveyance,

however, those allegations are not record facts. Further, it is not

clear how Ms. Gladden’s allegations, even if all were contained

in the record, would generate a genuine dispute of material fact

here.

App.22a

motion for summary judgment that could have been

granted. As such, they argue that the circuit court’s

original order must have been the product of a clerical

mistake and was properly subject to correction at any

time.

In Maryland, “[cjlerical mistakes...may be

corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative,

or on motion of any party after such notice, if any, as

the court orders.” Md. Rule 2-535(d). This rule

contemplates the “correction of clerical mistakes,

deficiencies in form, inadvertent omissions or obvious

mistakes as distinguished from judicial errors.” See

Gress v. ACandS, Inc., 150 Md.App. 369, 379, rev’d on

other grounds sub nom. Brown & Williamson Tobacco

Corp. v. Gress, 378 Md. 667 (2003) (cleaned up). The

rule also recognizes that “a court of equity has

inherent power to correct errors in its records whereby

they fail to express the truth in regard to its

proceedings[,]” and allows for corrections that “are

necessary to express the court’s intention and give

proper effect to the remedy intended[.}” Bailey v.

Bailey, 181 Md. 385, 389 (1943); see also Prince

George’s Cnty. v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co.,

47 Md.App. 380, 386 (1980) (explaining that a

correctible clerical mistake involves the failure “to

preserve of record, correctly in all respects, the actual

decision of the court”) (cleaned up).

Here, the circuit court did not act sua sponte in

correcting the apparent clerical mistake in its original

order granting summary judgment, although it had

the power to do so. Instead, the circuit court’s correction

was prompted by the Woodfords’ line notifying the

court of the mistake. The circuit court also signed the

proposed amended order that the Woodfords submitted

App.238a

with their line. Because a request to correct a clerical

mistake under Rule 2-535 must be made by motion,

we presume that the circuit court treated the

Woodfords’ line as a motion and then granted that

motion. The Woodfords’ line, however, did not contain

a certificate of service, and there was no indication

that it was served upon Ms. Gladden. Additionally,

Ms. Gladden apparently did not receive the line before

the amended order issued. See Md. Rule 1-321(a);19

see also Md. Rule 20-205(d)(2) (“The filer is

responsible for serving, in the manner set forth in

Rule 1-321, persons entitled to receive service of the

submission who...are not registered users [of

MDEC,]”).

Because there was no accompanying certificate of

service, the circuit court erred either by accepting the

Woodfords’ line for filing, or by accepting the line

19 Maryland Rule 1-321(a) sets forth the general requirements

for service of papers that are filed after the initial pleading:

Except as otherwise provided in these rules or by order of court,

every pleading and other paper filed after the original pleading

shall be served upon each of the parties. If service is required or

permitted to be made upon a party represented by an attorney,

service shall be made upon the attorney unless service upon the

party is ordered by the court. Service upon the attorney or upon

a party shall be made by delivery of a copy or by mailing it to the

address most recently stated in a pleading or paper filed by the

attorney or party, or if not stated, to the last known address.

Delivery of a copy within this Rule means: handing it to the

attorney or to the party; or leaving it at the office of the person

to be served with an individual in charge; or, if there is no one in

charge, leaving it in a conspicuous place in the office; or, if the

office is closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it

at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of that person with

some individual of suitable age and discretion who is residing

there. Service by mail is complete upon mailing.

App.24a

without issuing a deficiency notice. See Md. Rule 1-

323 (“The clerk shall not accept for filing any pleading

or other paper requiring service, other than an original

pleading, unless it is accompanied by an admission or

waiver of service or a signed certificate showing the

date and manner of making service.”);20 Md. Rule 20-

201(g) (certificate of service requirements for electronic

filings); Md. Rule 20-203 (requiring, among other

things, striking or issuing notices of deficiency as to

certain noncompliant electronic filings); Lovero v. Da

Silva, 200 Md.App. 433, 453 (2011) (holding that a

court clerk was required to refuse a notice of appeal

that lacked a certificate of service under Maryland

Rule 1-323).

Moreover, under Maryland Rule 2-311(b), a party

against whom a motion is directed has 15 days to file

a response. By treating the Woodford’s line as a

motion, and by signing the Woodfords’ proposed

amended order two days after their line was filed, the

20 We note that Ms. Gladden’s letter correspondence, sent after

the circuit court amended its order, did not implicate Maryland

Rule 1-323 because it was not “filed” with the clerk. Instead, it

appears to have been mailed directly to the judge’s chambers.

Under such circumstances, the court, and not the clerk, may

accept the paper for filing as provided by Maryland Rule 1-

322(a):

The filing of pleadings, papers, and other items with

the court shall be made by filing them with the clerk

of the court, except that a judge of that court may

accept the filing, in which event the judge shall note

on the item the date the judge accepted it for filing

and forthwith transmit the item to the office of the

clerk. ... [T]he clerk shall note on it that date it was

received and enter on the docket that date and any

date noted on the item by a judge.

App.25a

circuit court effectively provided only two days (at

most) in which Ms. Gladden could have responded. No

motion to shorten time was filed, much less granted.

This too was error.

Nevertheless, these errors are harmless here

because the circuit court had the power to correct its

clerical mistake at any time, upon its own motion. As

we explained above, the circuit court’s original order

granted “Plaintiffs” motion for summary judgment.

But the record here not only demonstrates that this

language was erroneous, it shows that such a result

would not even have been possible because Ms.

Gladden had not filed any such motion. The circuit

court was thus within its power to amend its orderand indeed, the circuit court’s amendment merely

conformed its written order to the actual substance of

its decision. Contrary to Ms. Gladden’s argument, the

circuit court did not reverse any judgment.

Ms. Gladden was also not prejudiced by the

failure to serve her with the Woodfords’ line or allow

her time to respond. Simply put, once the circuit court

realized (or was alerted to) the clerical mistake in its

order, even a prompt response by Ms. Gladden could

not have staved off a correction under Maryland Rule

2-535(d), regardless of whether that correction

occurred upon the Woodfords’ motion or was made on

the circuit court’s own initiative.21

21 And in so concluding, we need not speculate about the effect

that Ms. Gladden’s response might have had. This is because Ms.

Gladden’s response and the circuit court’s assessment of it are in

the record. After the amended order was issued, Ms. Gladden

sent multiple letters to the circuit court-totaling approximately

ten pages with ten exhibits- detailing her arguments why the

amended order should not have been entered. These letters and

App.26a

JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR

HOWARD COUNTY AFFIRMED; COSTS TO BE

PAID BY APPELLANT.

* At the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters

of Maryland ratified a constitutional amendment

changing the name of the Court of Special Appeals of

Maryland to the Appellate Court of Maryland. The

name change took effect on December 14, 2022.

** 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.

exhibits were received well within 30 days of the amended order.

See Md. Rule 3- 535(a) (permitting broader revisory power and

control over a judgment, within 30 days after entry of the

judgment, than provided for under Md. Rule 5-535(d)). Ms.

Gladden did not request a hearing in either of her letters. Upon

concluding its review, the circuit court declined to revise its

judgment and concluded that no action should be taken. And

upon our own review, we have reached the same conclusion: we

do not perceive any reason why the circuit court should not (or

would not) have entered the amended order had it received Ms.

Gladden’s responses to the Woodfords’ line at an earlier time.

App.27a

AMENDED ORDER, CIRCUIT COURT FOR

HOWARD COUNTY

(JANUARY 20, 2022)

E-FILED;

Howard Circuit Court

Docket: 1/18/2022;

Submission 1/18/2022 7:35 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR

HOWARD COUNTY

MIRIAM GLADDEN,

Plaintiff,

Vv.

RAYNA WOODFORD, ET AL..,

Defendants.

Case No.: C- 13-CV-21-000064

Before: Timothy J. McCRONE, Judge,

Circuit Court for Howard County.

AMENDED ORDER

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended

Complaint or for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff's

Opposition thereto, having been heard, and considered,

it is this | 01/20/2022), by the Circuit Court of Howard

County,

App.28a

ORDERED, that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Amended Complaint or for Summary Judgment is

hereby is GRANTED, and this matter is hereby

dismissed with prejudice.

01/20/2022 4:33:34 PM

/s/ Timothy J. McCrone

Timothy J. McCrone

Judge

Circuit Court for Howard County

Entered: Clerk, Circuit Court for

Howard County, MD

January 21, 2022

Entered: Clerk, Circuit Court for

Howard County, MD

January 21, 2022

App.29a

ORDER, CIRCUIT COURT FOR

HOWARD COUNTY

(SEPTEMBER 20, 2021)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR

HOWARD COUNTY

MIRIAM GLADDEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAYNA WOODFORD, ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. C-13-CV-21-000064

Before: Timothy J. McCRONE, Judge,

Circuit Court for Howard County.

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, and any

Opposition thereto, having been read, or heard, and

considered, it is this (09/20/2021), by the Circuit Court

for Howard County,

App.30a

ORDERD, that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary

Judgment, is hereby GRANTED, with prejudice.

00/20/2021 4:26:27 PN

/s/ Timothy J. McCrone

Timothy J. McCrone

Circuit Court Judge

Entered: Clerk, Circult Gourt fox

Howard County, MD

September 21, 2021

Entered: Clerk, Circuit Court for

Howard County, MD

September 21, 2021

BLANK PAGE

SUPREME COURT

PRESS