Whether pre-removal discovery requests are nullified upon removal to federal court

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Before this case, a host of federal courts had held that pre-removal discovery requests, which have not become due, are nullified upon removal of a case to federal court because they are not “proceedings” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1450, and thus do not travel to the federal court. Likewise, a host of federal courts had also held that removal leaves nothing behind in the state court. Relying on these holdings, Petitioner maintained below that pre-removal discovery requests issued in this case had been ; nullified upon removal of the case to federal court, and thus, would have to be renewed or reissued to be effective. Respondent was notified of Petitioner’s position, but rather than renewing or reissuing the requests, it filed a discovery sanctions motion against Petitioner for not answering them. The lower courts rejected Petitioner’s federal law argument and entered a default judgment against him, the effect of which was supposed to be Petitioner’s deemed admission of only the original allegations in the . charging document commencing the case. Because of the procedures that occurred, however, Petitioner was also denied a trial as to scores of new allegations, hereinafter referred to as “unalleged contentions,” which appeared for the first time in a proposed opinion, authored by an attorney for Respondent, after the default judg: ment was entered. Petitioner was not allowed to file a written response to the proposed opinion, and based upon its acceptance of the “unalleged contentions,” the lower court disbarred Petitioner. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the lower courts misapplied important principles of federal removal law and erred in concluding there had been a failure of discovery in this case ii because by operation of federal law, pre-removal discovery requests, which have not yet become due, are nullified upon removal of a case from state court to federal court, since they (i) do not travel to the federal court, as they are not “proceedings” within the definition of 28 U.S.C. § 1450, and Gi) cannot remain in the state court either because removal of a case leaves nothing behind in the state court. 2. Whether the Maryland courts violated the Petitioner’s due process rights, as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the US. Constitution, by denying him reasonable notice and opportunity to defend the “unalleged contentions.”