William John Joseph Hoge,

Plaintiff,
v.
Brett Kimberlin, et al.,
Defendants.

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTY

MARYLAND
Case No. 06-C-16-070789

PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDTS OPPOSITION TO THE

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
COMES NOW William John Joseph Hoge and replies to Defendant
Schmalfeldts Opposition to the Motion to Compel Discovery (Docket Item 101/1). In
reply Mr. Hoge states as follows:
MR. HOGE HAS MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE THIS DISCOVERY
DISPUTE WITH DEFENDANT SCHMALFELDT
Mr. Hoges certification pursuant to Md. Rule 2-431 was attached to his
Motion to Compel. Schmalfeldt does not dispute that Mr. Hoge contacted him and
attempted to negotiate with him concerning discovery. Rather, he complains that
Mr. Hoges negotiating position was not acceptable to him, in essence stating that
good faith should be defined by a bargaining position Schmalfeldt finds agreeable.
However, negotiating in good faith does not require Mr. Hoge to give up discovery to
which he is entitled. Additionally, Schmalfeldt misrepresents Mr. Hoges efforts to
negotiate as a note and a short, brusque letter.1 As stated in Mr. Hoges Rule
1

This false characterization is reinforced by Schmalfeldts citation of an inapposite

bit of case law: A single letter between counsel which addresses the discovery
dispute does not satisfy the duty to confer. Williams v. Brd. of County Comms,
192, F.R.D. 698, 700 (D.Kan. 2000). Cited in Schmalfeldts Opposition at 2.

2-431 certification, there were exchanges of emails on two separate occasions

between Mr. Hoge and Schmalfeldt concerning discovery, and the second round of
communication, which occurred via email on 6 December, 2016, included two letters
from Mr. Hoge. Schmalfeldt made it clear in that exchange that he would not
answer the Interrogatories in question unless the Court orders him to do so.
It is somewhat puzzling that Schmalfeldt should cite Rodrigues v. Clarke, 400
Md. 39, 926 A2d. 736 (2007). That case affirms the granting of summary judgment
to the petitioners when the adverse parties failed to comply with discovery requests.
[T]he discovery violations stem not only from the Clarkes failure to
make good-faith efforts to provide access to information about their
expert witnesses, but also from their failure to make good-faith
attempts to sincerely resolve the discovery dispute.
926 A2d. at 751. It is Mr. Hoge who has made a good faith effort in discovery and
Schmalfeldt who has failed to meet his obligations. To the extent the case law
Schmalfeldt cites is relevant to the instant lawsuit, it supports Mr. Hoges Motion to
Compel.
SCHMALFELDT HAS NOT CITED ANY LAWFUL REASON WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE
COMPELLED TO ANSWER THE INTERROGATORIES
As noted in Mr. Hoges motion, the information sought via the Interrogatories
in question is well within the scope permitted by the Rule 2-402, i.e., either it
relates to the identity and location of persons having knowledge of [a] discoverable
matter or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Nothing sought is privileged. Schmalfeldt has not sought a protective order.

Indeed, he has done nothing to meet his burden to show why he should not be
compelled to answer.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Mr. Hoge asks the Court to compel Defendant Schmalfeldt to
answer Interrogatories 7 and 8 propounded to him on 17 October, 2016, and to
grant such other relief as the Court may find just and proper.
Date: 29 December, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

William John Joseph Hoge, pro se

20 Ridge Road
Westminster, Maryland 21157
(410) 596-2854
himself@wjjhoge.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 29th day of December, 2016, I served copies of the
foregoing on the following persons:
William M. Schmalfeldt by First Class U. S. Mail to 3209 S. Lake Drive, Apt. 108,
St. Francis, Wisconsin 53235
Brett Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817
Tetyana Kimberlin by First Class U. S. Mail to 8100 Beech Tree Road, Bethesda,
Maryland 20817

William John Joseph Hoge

AFFIDAVIT
I, William John Joseph Hoge, solemnly affirm under the penalties of perjury
that the contents of the foregoing paper are true to the best of my knowledge,
information, and belief.
Date: 29 December, 2016
William John Joseph Hoge