Johnson v. Franklin
115 A.3d 752
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2015Background
- Johnson filed a "complaint to perpetuate evidence" seeking a court order to conduct noninvasive lead-paint testing of 3811 Reisterstown Road, a home now owned by Franklin, to support a separate lead-poisoning lawsuit against a prior owner.
- Johnson had attempted to obtain Franklin’s voluntary consent and later served discovery requests on her; Franklin did not respond to post‑complaint discovery but had previously provided Johnson copies of prior testing results and opposed new entry.
- The circuit court held a July 25, 2014 hearing at which Franklin (pro se) testified that she did not want testers in her home because prior tests were sufficient.
- The court denied Johnson’s motion (styled as a motion for summary judgment) and his complaint, finding Johnson failed to show that his access right outweighed Franklin’s privacy interest, and closed the case.
- Johnson appealed, arguing the court effectively converted his complaint into a mere request, erred in denying summary judgment, and failed to follow Stokes v. 835 N. Washington Street, LLC.
- The Court of Special Appeals vacated the circuit court’s order and remanded, holding the trial court abused its discretion by failing to apply all Stokes factors required for granting a pure equitable bill of discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court may order nonparty entry for noninvasive lead testing via a pure bill of discovery | Johnson: Stokes permits an equitable bill of discovery to inspect nonparty property; testing is necessary to prove his separate lead-paint suit | Franklin: Prior testing was done and provided; she has privacy rights and does not consent to entry | Court: A pure bill of discovery is available; courts must apply Stokes factors before granting entry |
| Whether the trial court properly disposed of Johnson’s petition by summary judgment | Johnson: Franklin’s failures to answer discovery admitted facts; summary judgment appropriate | Franklin: Contested right to entry and privacy; factual issues required hearing | Court: Summary judgment was inappropriate; the matter is equitable and requires application of Stokes factors and an evidentiary determination |
| Proper standard of review for denial of a pure bill of discovery | Johnson: de novo because case treated as summary judgment | Franklin: (implicit) abuse of discretion review | Court: Abuse of discretion; trial court must consider guiding standards (Stokes factors) |
| Whether the circuit court considered required Stokes factors before denying relief | Johnson: Court failed to apply correct standard | Franklin: Court focused on privacy and relied on prior testing | Court: Trial court considered only privacy; failure to consider all Stokes factors was an abuse of discretion; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Charles Stokes v. 835 N. Washington Street, LLC, 141 Md. App. 214 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2001) (sets four-factor test for equitable bill of discovery for nonparty property inspection)
- Webb v. Joyce Real Estate, Inc., 108 Md. App. 512 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1996) (Maryland Rule does not authorize entry onto nonparty property under Rule 2-422)
- Peyton v. Werhane, 11 A.2d 800 (Conn. 1940) (describes historical nature and scope of pure bill of discovery)
- Pottetti v. Clifford, 150 A.2d 207 (Conn. 1959) (explains bill of discovery as an equitable remedy to facilitate proof)
- Fox v. Fox, 85 Md. App. 448 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1991) (appellate review may look to record to determine whether court considered required factors)