Rule 2-422 - Discovery of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Property-from Party(a) Scope. Any party may serve one or more requests to any other party (1) as to items that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party upon whom the request is served, to produce and permit the party making the request, or someone acting on the party's behalf, to inspect, copy, test or sample designated documents or electronically stored information (including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations stored in any medium from which information can be obtained, translated, if necessary, by the respondent through detection devices into reasonably usable form) or to inspect and copy, test, or sample any designated tangible things which constitute or contain matters within the scope of Rule 2-402(a); or (2) to permit entry upon designated land or other property in the possession or control of the party upon whom the request is served for the purpose of inspection, measuring, surveying, photographing, testing, or sampling the property or any designated object or operation on the property, within the scope of Rule 2-402(a). Cross reference: For inspection of property of a nonparty in an action pending in this State and for discovery under the Maryland Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act that is not in conjunction with a deposition, see Rule 2-422.1.
(b) Request. A request shall set forth the items to be inspected, either by individual item or by category; describe each item and category with reasonable particularity; and specify a reasonable time, place, and manner of making the inspection and performing the related acts. The request may specify the form in which electronically stored information is to be produced.(c) Response. The party to whom a request is directed shall serve a written response 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. The response shall state, with respect to each item or category, that (1) inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested, (2) the request is refused, or (3) the request for production in a particular form is refused. The grounds for each refusal shall be fully stated. If the refusal relates to part of an item or category, the part shall be specified. If a refusal relates to the form in which electronically stored information is requested to be produced (or if no form was specified in the request) the responding party shall state the form in which it would produce the information. Cross reference: See Rule 2-402(b)(1) for a list of factors used by the court to determine the reasonableness of discovery requests and (b)(2) concerning the assessment of the costs of discovery.
(d) Production.(1) A party who produces documents or electronically stored information for inspection shall (A) produce the documents or information as they are kept in the usual course of business or organize and label them to correspond with the categories in the request, and (B) produce electronically stored information in the form specified in the request or, if the request does not specify a form, in the form in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form that is reasonably usable.(2) A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form. Committee note: Onsite inspection of electronically stored information should be the exception, not the rule, because litigation usually relates to the informational content of the data held on a computer system, not to the operation of the system itself. In most cases, there is no justification for direct inspection of an opposing party's computer system. See In re Ford Motor Co., 345 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2003) (vacating order allowing plaintiff direct access to defendant's databases).
To justify onsite inspection of a computer system and the programs used, a party should demonstrate a substantial need to discover the information and the lack of a reasonable alternative. The inspection procedure should be documented by agreement or in a court order and should be narrowly restricted to protect confidential information and system integrity and to avoid giving the discovering party access to data unrelated to the litigation. The data subject to inspection should be dealt with in a way that preserves the producing party's rights, as, for example, through the use of neutral court-appointed consultants. See, generally, The Sedona Conference, The Sedona Principles: Best Practices Recommendations and Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production (2d ed. 2007), Comment 6. c.
Md. R. Civ. P. Cir. Ct. 2-422
This Rule is derived from former Rule 419 and the 1980 and 2006 versions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.
Adopted April 6, 1984, eff. 7/1/1984. Amended March 22, 1991, eff. 7/1/1991; 11/12/2003, eff. 1/1/2004; 12/4/2007, eff. 1/1/2008; 12/13/2016, eff. 4/1/2017.HISTORICAL NOTES
2003 Orders
The November 12, 2003, order, in section (a), deleted "at any time following "A party may serve; and amended the source note.
2007 Orders
The December 4, 2007, order, added details for the discovery of electronically stored information.
2016 Orders
The December 13, 2016, order, changed the title of the Rule and added a cross reference following section (a).