Park v. Axelson

SHINOK PARK v. AXELSON, WILLIAMOWSKY, BENDER & FISHMAN, P.C.

No. 1486-2021

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland^[*]

December 29, 2022

Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No. 467075-V

Berger, Friedman, Harrell, Glenn T., Jr. (Senior Judge Specially Assigned), JJ.

OPINION ^[**]

Berger, J.

In this pro se appeal, Shinok Park, appellant, seeks review of an order, entered by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, granting summary judgment in favor of Axelson Williamowsky, Bender &Fishman, P.C. ("AWBF"), appellee. The court's judgments were based, at least in part, on Ms. Park's "deemed admissions," the result of her failure to timely respond to AWBF's discovery requests.

Ms. Park presents three issues for our review, which we have rephrased as follows:

I. Whether the court abused its discretion by deeming admitted AWBF's request for admissions of fact.

II. Whether the court abused its discretion by denying Ms. Park's motion to withdraw those deemed admissions.

III. Whether the court erroneously denied granting summary judgment as to Ms. Park's counterclaims based upon its finding that she had produced insufficient evidence to generate a genuine dispute of material fact in support thereof.^[1]

We answer these questions in the negative and therefore affirm the judgments of the circuit court.

BACKGROUND

On July 28, 2015, Ms. Park filed a complaint, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, against M.B., her former supervisor at the World Bank where she had worked, alleging sexual assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress ("the Sexual Assault Case").^[2] On May 30, 2017, she retained AWBF, a law firm based in Rockville, Maryland, to represent her in that civil suit. In so doing, she signed a "Legal Services Agreement," thereby consenting to the fee schedule set forth therein. The agreement also provided that Bruce M Bender, Esq., an AWBF partner, would supervise Ms. Park's case.

Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Ms. Park on her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and awarded her damages in the amount of $15,000.^[3]The court, however, entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of M.B. The court further found that Ms. Park had maintained the action in bad faith and imposed fact, Ms. Park submitted numerous affidavits and other documentary support. sanctions in the form of attorney's fees against her in the amount of $150,000.^[4] The court reasoned that:

[Ms. Park] used vivid facial expressions to communicate to the jury her views about testimony while witnesses testified. When she testified, [Ms. Park] repeatedly ignored court rulings on the admissibility of certain evidence. She listened to bench conferences convened to address objections raised during her testimony and disregarded the directives that resulted from those bench conferences. Indeed, [Ms. Park's] insistence on repeating her testimony, straying beyond the questions asked when she answered, and covering areas declared off limits resulted in about 21 hours of testimony excluding the time spent on bench conferences and matters discussed outside the presence of the jury.

(Emphasis retained).

While the Sexual Assault Case was pending, Ms. Park retained AWBF to represent her in the appeal of a related defamation suit that she had filed against M.B. and his attorney ("the Defamation Appeal"). On February 6, 2018, she signed a second legal services agreement that was substantively similar to the first. During the Defamation Appeal, AWBF filed two appellate briefs in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Although Ms. Park did not prevail, that case resulted in a published opinion. See Park v. [M.B.], 234 A.3d 1212 (D.C. 2020).

On May 29, 2019, AWBF filed suit against Ms. Park to collect $187,980.20 in unpaid legal fees allegedly owed for professional services rendered in both the Sexual Assault Case and the Defamation Appeal. In September 2019, Ms. Park removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The case was remanded back to the circuit court the following month.

After the remand, Ms. Park filed an answer to AWBF's complaint, as well as a counterclaim for breach of contract and negligent representation. In the latter, filed on January 13, 2020, she alleged that AWBF had, among other things:

. . . failed to amend the complaint against [M.B.] to include claims for intentional and negligent misrepresentations[;]

. . . failed [to] timely address . . . the authenticity of certain alleged email and chat communications that [M.B.] produced[;]

. . . failed to timely identify and/or employ an expert to address the authenticity of certain alleged email and chat communications that [M.B.] produced[;]

. . . failed to properly prepare and advise Ms. Park regarding her testimony relating to certain alleged email and chat communications [M.B.] produced[;]

. . . instructed her to provide false testimony relating to certain alleged email and chat communications [M.B.] produced[;]

. . . failed to properly prepare and advise Ms. Park about her testimony regarding her complaints filed with the World Bank[;]

. . . altered Ms. Park's medical chart without her knowledge[; and]

. . . litigated Ms. Park's matter in way which subjected her to sanctions in the amount of $153,000.

On June 25, 2020, AWBF served Ms. Park with interrogatories, a request for production of documents, and a request for admissions of facts.^[5] The admissions request expressly advised Ms. Park: "The matters requested below are admitted unless, within 30 days after service of these Requests, [Ms.] Park serves upon [AWBF] a written answer or objection address[ing] . . . the matter signed by [Ms. Park's] attorney." It then sought the following admissions:

REQUEST NO. 1: That you never instructed Bruce M. Bender or [AWBF] to amend your Complaint to include a claim for intentional and negligent misrepresentation[s] against [M.B.]

REQUEST NO. 2: That [M.B.] did not make any intentional and/or negligent misrepresentations to you that caused you damages.

REQUEST NO. 3: That Mr. Bender and [AWBF] hired two separate computer forensic expert witnesses, John Conroy and Brian Halpin, to address the issue of the authenticity of email and chat communications that [M.B.] produced.

REQUEST NO. 4: That both Mr. Conroy and Mr. Halpin determined that all email and chat communications that [M.B.] produced were authentic.

REQUEST NO. 5: That Mr. Bender and [AWBF] spent over 30 hours preparing you for your trial testimony and had multiple meetings in his office.

REQUEST NO. 6: That Mr. Bender advised you to tell the truth relating to all email and chat communications [M.B.] produced.

REQUEST NO. 7: That you reviewed all documents that were submitted as exhibits, including your entire medical chart.

REQUEST NO. 8: That the only damages you are claiming in this case are the sanctions assessed against you in the amount of $153,000.

REQUEST NO. 9: That all sanctions assessed against you by the trial judge in the case of Park v. [M.B.] w[ere] because of your own conduct and not because of any conduct of Mr. Bruce Bender or [AWBF].

Although she was served with AWBF's discovery requests on June 25, Ms. Park sent AWBF an e-mail 29 days later (on July 24), indicating that its discovery requests had only recently come to her attention, writing: "I did not realize that you had provided discovery requests. In light of the current health situation, I am requesting an additional 60 days to respond to your requests."^[6] In a reply sent on July 27, AWBF denied Ms. Park's request for a 60-day extension, but granted her an additional 21 days to comply with its discovery requests. Three days later, Ms. Park responded: "Thank you for your response. I will do my best but given my other commitments and health conditions, I seriously doubt that I could prepare in 21 days."

Ms. Park failed to adhere to the amended deadline. Accordingly, on August 18, 2020, AWBF filed a motion to compel discovery, in which it requested that the court: "issue an order compelling [Ms. Park] to respond to the Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within 10 days of the date of said Order and also order that the Request for Admissions of Facts be deemed admitted since no response was filed in a timely manner." Ms. Park filed an opposition to that motion more than two weeks later. In that opposition, Ms. Park claimed that she had not received AWBF's discovery requests until July 20 and assured the court: "I can provide my discovery responses on or before November 15, 2020." On September 21, 2020, the court entered the following order:

UPON CONSIDERATION of [AWBF's] Motion to Compel Discovery and any opposition thereto^[*] it is this 18th day of Sept[ember] 2020, by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland,

ORDERED: that [AWBF's] Motion to Compel Discovery is granted and [Ms. Park's] Request for Extension is moot, and it is further,

ORDERED: that [Ms. Park] shall file responses to the Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within 30 days from the entry date of this Order, and it is further,

ORDERED: that the Request for Admissions of Facts filed on June 25, 2020, are deemed admitted.

On October 15, 2020, Ms. Park filed a motion to withdraw admissions of fact, to which she appended belated responses to AWBF's request for admissions. She failed, however, to comply with the order to compel discovery. Rather than timely answering AWBF's interrogatories or responding to its request for production of documents, on October 20 (the day before the discovery deadline), she asked that AWBF consent to yet another three-week extension. When AWBF denied her request, Ms. Park filed a motion for...