provides for a hearing, the court shall determine in each case whether a hearing will be held, but the court may not render a decision that is dispositive of a claim or defense without a hearing if one was requested as provided in this section. Neither Rule 16-732, nor Rule 2-510(e), to which some sections of Rule 16-732 refer, “expressly provides” for a hearing on a motion to quash a subpoena issued by the Commission. Further, an order denying a motion to quash is not an order “dispositive of a claim or defense.” We have not previously defined precisely what is meant by the phrase “dispositive of a claim or defense.” The most we have done is indicate what sort of rulings come within the meaning of that phrase. See, e.g., Lerman v. Heeman, 347 Md. 439, 447, 701 A.2d 426, 430 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Odenton Dev. Co. v. Lamy, 320 Md. 33, 41, 575
holding that a motion to intervene is not dispositive of a claim or defense of a party holding that motion for reconsideration would be construed not as a rule 60b motion but rather as an unauthorized successive motion under  2255 which the district court may have been without jurisdiction to consider holding that a motion for rule 11 sanctions is dispositive holding that a motion to continue a hearing on a postjudgment motion was ineffective to extend the period for the trial court to rule on the motion absent the express consent of the parties holding that a motion for contribution would be dispositive of a claim under rule 2311f and therefore if requested by one of the parties a hearing on the motion would have been required