PMYC's assertion, that PML purposefully failed to produce certain documents during discovery. Moreover, the three documents that PMYC alleges PML knowingly withheld are not particularly damaging to PML. In fact, certain of these documents are more helpful to PML than PMYC in that they seem to prove PML's position that no binding settlement agreement had been reached between the two parties.
As for PML's motion for sanctions, the Court reserves judgment pending a resolution of the underlying contract dispute between the parties. PML alleges that PMYC's pleading is not well grounded in fact because in a separate action PMYC argued that it breached its agreement with PML, whereas in this action PMYC denies breaching the December 10, 1986, exclusive dealership agreement. In Presidential Motor Yacht Co. v. First American Bank of Virginia, No. 3111380 (Cir. Ct. Anne Arundel Oct. 24, 1989), appeal dismissed (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Feb. 9, 1990), PMYC in its verified complaint alleged that "the failure of First American to issue the letter of credit in question would render Presidential in breach of its obligation to President Marine, Ltd."
Until this court determines the exact nature of PML's and PMYC's course of dealing and the status of the December 10, 1986, agreement it cannot rule on this motion. In other words, it is not entirely clear whether PMYC in its verified complaint against First American Bank of Virginia is referring to the December 10, 1986, exclusive distributor agreement with PML or some subsequent modified agreement. Further, it is not yet clear whether failing to obtain this particular letter of credit would constitute a noncurable breach.
For the foregoing reasons there was no binding and enforceable settlement agreement reached between the parties. Plaintiff's motion for a separate trial to settle the issue of whether a binding settlement agreement had been reached and request for a protective order protecting it from discovery concerning the underlying contract dispute between the parties are denied. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.
ORDER - November 29, 1990, Filed
Upon consideration of defendant's and plaintiff's motions for summary judgment, plaintiff's motion to bifurcate the trial, plaintiff's motion for a protective order, and plaintiff's and defendant's motions for sanctions, the oppositions thereto, and the entire record herein, it hereby is
ORDERED, that defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied. Further, it is
ORDERED, that plaintiff's motion to bifurcate the trial and plaintiff's motion for a protective order are denied. Finally, it is
ORDERED, that plaintiff's motion for sanctions is denied and judgment on defendant's motion for sanctions is reserved, pending further discovery for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Opinion.