First Mariner Bank v. The Resolution Law Group, P.C.

Filing 190

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan K. Gauvey on 12/4/13. (jnls, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET

SUSAN K. GAUVEY

BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

[e-mail]
[phone]
[phone] - Fax

December 4, 2013

Christopher J. Lyon, Esq.
James B. Astrachan, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Harlan, Esq.
Astrachan, Gunst, Thomas, Rubin PC
217 E. Redwood Street, Suite 2100
Baltimore, MD 21202
Eric Kirk, Esq.
John L. Calhoun, Esq.
Kandel and Associates
401 E. Pratt Street, Suite 1252
Baltimore, MD 21202
Randall L. Hagen, Esq.
Law Office of Randall L Hagen LLC
6325 Woodside Court, Suite 210
Columbia, MD 21046
Re:

First Mariner Bank v. The Resolution Law Group, P.C.,
et al, MJG-12-1133

Dear Counsel:
The Court held a telephone hearing today on Defendant’s
Motion for Reconsideration of Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
October 24, 2013 (ECF No. 176) and former counsel’s Rule
60[b][6] Motion for Relief from 10/24/13 Order, Rule 59 Motion
to Amend 10/24/13 Order, and Rule 52[B] Motion for Amended

Findings (ECF No. 166) and to give Messers Kirk and Calhoun and
the firm of Kandel and Associates, PA an opportunity to be heard
on the imposition of an award of attorneys’ fees on them and
defendants on a joint and several basis.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS in part
and DENIES in part both motions.
As to the award of attorneys’ fees jointly and severally
against Messers Kirk and Calhoun and Kandel and Associates, PA
the Court shall amend the award, imposing the attorneys’ fees
award solely on the defendants.

In doing so, the Court does not

endorse former counsel’s handling of the discovery throughout
their representation.

Counsel should have understood from the

beginning that the information received from their clients was
wholly insufficient.

An attorney is not simply a conduit; an

attorney is to exercise individual judgment, to evaluate what a
client produces, not simply blindly pass it on. However, the
Court does recognize that after admonishment, counsel “stepped
up their game” and responsibly transitioned representation to
new counsel after their withdrawal was permitted.

Moreover, it

is clear that it was the defendants, not counsel, who were the
overarching cause of the stymied discovery.
As to the jury instruction regarding the failure of
defendants to provide a viable address for Marketing Smart, the
parties have confirmed that a viable address was provided on

June 20, apparently through the efforts of Mr. Kirk, and
accordingly, that portion of the jury instructions shall be
omitted but the delay in providing the information will be added
to the “delay” instruction.
As to the proposed instruction regarding failure to provide
contact information on all persons identified in interrogatories
Nos. 4 and 11, the defendants shall have until December 11 to
provide the contact information, including specifically for Gary
L., Kit Wright, Bill Goodman and Brian Maller; otherwise, the
jury instruction shall be given as proposed.
Finally, as discussed in the telephone hearing, any further
obfuscation of discovery on defendants’ part, including at
defense depositions, will not be tolerated and if occurs, will
be subjected to sanctions.
A separate order incorporating this ruling, shall be
issued.
Despite the informal nature of this ruling, it shall
constitute an Order of Court, and the Clerk is directed to
docket it accordingly.

Sincerely yours,
/s/
Susan K. Gauvey
United States Magistrate Judge

CC:

Honorable Marvin J. Garbis
Court file and Chambers File