tion with that matter may be imputed to the organization for purposes of civil or criminal liability or whose statement may constitute an admission on the part of the organization. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek to interview present employees of the City, the foregoing Comment provides the necessary guidance. Neither the plain language of the Rule nor the Comment make clear, however, whether and to what extent the Rule applies to ex parte contact with former employees of a corporate-party. Maryland’s appellate courts have not resolved the issue, and judges of this Court who have attempted to forecast the likely position of the Maryland Court of Appeals have reached contradictory results. Compare Davidson Supply Co. v. P.P.E., Inc., 986 F.Supp. 956, 958 (D.Md.1997) (Smalkin, J) (<HOLDING>), with Zachair, Ltd. v. Driggs, 965 F.Supp.
holding that personal jurisdiction is proper if party has sufficient minimum contacts recognizing general rule that ex post facto provision does not apply to purely procedural matters holding that rule 42 did not apply to ex parte contacts with former employees of represented party holding that where an spa does not mention former employees but only current employees and a complaint only alleges that former employees were solicited there is no breach of a nonsolicitation clause holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum