Johnson v. Clark
199 Md. App. 305
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Interlocutory appeal under Md. Rule 8-207 regarding order denying quash/protective order for deposition of former County Executive Jack Johnson.
- Plaintiffs seek to depose Johnson to obtain information about Washington’s conduct and the County’s handling of Washington’s employment and weapon assignment.
- Morgan doctrine governs deposition of high-ranking officials; official action and mental processes may be shielded unless extraordinary circumstances or personal involvement justify disclosure.
- Circuit Court denied some deposition topics but allowed questions about Johnson’s knowledge; Morgan doctrine and related privileges are central to the dispute.
- Court holds Johnson’s deposition should be denied and reverses, limiting discovery to non-privileged, non-deliberative knowledge; Morgan exception controls here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morgan doctrine allows deposition of a high-ranking official. | Clark argues Johnson’s deposition seeks necessary, firsthand information. | Johnson asserts Morgan protects high officials from such deposits. | Yes; Morgan applies to limit deposition of Johnson. |
| Whether Johnson has personal knowledge relevant to Count X requirements. | Appellees claim Johnson’s knowledge is unique and undiscoverable otherwise. | Johnson has no personal knowledge about Washington’s acts; knowledge would be privileged. | No; Johnson lacks necessary personal knowledge beyond privileged mental processes. |
| Whether executive/mental process privilege bars questioning about Johnson’s deliberative actions. | Questions about why Johnson appointed Washington implicate deliberative process. | Deliberative questions encroach on executive/mental process privilege. | Privilege applies; limited to non-deliberative testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. United States, 313 U.S. 409 (1941) (creates Morgan doctrine protecting high-ranking officials from deposition of mental processes)
- Hamilton v. Verdow, 287 Md. 544 (1980) (exec privilege extends to official information and deliberative communications)
- Patuxent Valley Conservation League v. PSC, 300 Md. 200 (1984) (recognizes collateral aspects of discovery and privilege)
- Montgomery County v. Stevens, 337 Md. 471 (1995) ( Maryland discovery/privilege context for high-level officials)
- Office of the Governor v. Washington Post Co., 360 Md. 520 (2000) (exec privilege considerations in Maryland cases)