Final Analysis Communication v. Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll (Cir. Ct. Balto. City)

Filed January 2, 2007--Opinion by Judge Albert Matricciani, Jr.

In an amended memorandum decision, the Court considered a motion for summary judgment on all of Final Analysis Communication's (FAC's) claims because it allegedly failed to comply with the Court's pre-trial scheduling order in designating expert witnesses and because the undisputed material facts demonstrated that it cannot prove that its damage claims were proximately caused by Ballard Spahr's actions.

FAC asked the Court to excuse its failure to make timely expert witness designations because there was a change in its legal representation in early 2006; because there was an unsuccessful but time consuming effort to bring its parent corporation into the litigation; because Ballard Spahr had previously suggested a six month stay of the case; and because Ballard Spahr allegedly was not prejudiced and did receive notice of proposed experts.

The Court expressed serious doubts about FAC's ability to prove that its damage claims were proximately caused by Ballard Spahr's actions. Further, finding exceptional circumstances, the Court precluded FAC from presenting expert testimony and entered summary judgment for Ballard Spahr on all claims.

The full opinion is available in PDF.