Stern v. Western Express, Inc. et al.

Summary

The court denied without prejudice the plaintiff’s request to compel discovery in a motor-vehicle tort action involving negligent hiring, retention, and entrustment claims. Applying Maryland law, the court concluded that those derivative negligence claims were not presently relevant because the employer admitted the driver acted within the scope of employment and no underlying negligence claim was operative. The court stayed discovery pending resolution of the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint, which sought to add negligence and punitive-damages claims.

Holdings

1. Where an employer admits that its employee was acting within the scope of employment, a plaintiff may not maintain derivative negligence claims against the employer absent an underlying tort, and discovery directed solely to negligent hiring, retention, supervision, training, or entrustment was not relevant under the operative complaint.
2. Discovery that is presently irrelevant may become relevant if the court grants leave to amend to add a viable punitive-damages claim, because such a claim may create an exception to the rule against derivative negligence claims after an employer admits agency.
3. The existence of a pending dispositive motion does not, by itself, preclude discovery absent special circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether discovery concerning Defendant's hiring, retention, supervision, training, and entrustment was relevant and proportional under the operative complaint after Defendant admitted that the driver acted within the scope of employment.
2. Whether discovery should be stayed pending resolution of Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a negligence claim and a punitive-damages claim.
3. Whether the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings independently required discovery to be precluded.

Disposition

other