“Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201(b)(1) addresses the scope of pretrial discovery, and provides that unless otherwise stated in these rules, a party may obtain by discovery full disclosure regarding any matter relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, whether it relates to a claim or defense. (Zagorski v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2016) 54 N.E.3d 296, 303 citing Ill. S.Ct. R. 201(b)(1) [eff. July 1, 2014].)
“Rule 201(b)(1) is founded on the basic premise that the object of discovery is the expeditious and final determination of controversies in accordance with the substantive rights of the parties.” (Zagorski, id., citing Owen v. Mann (1985) 105 Ill.2d 525, 530; Monier v. Chamberlain (1966) 35 Ill.2d 351, 357.)
“Interrogatories under Rule 213 and requests to produce under Rule 214(a) must be served in writing upon the responding party, which then has ‘a reasonable time’ to respond or object to each request.” (Carlson v. Jerousek (2016) 68 N.E.3d 520, 529 quoting Ill. S. Ct. R. 213 [eff. Jan. 1, 2007]; Ill. S. Ct. R. 214(a) [eff. July 1, 2014]. “One ground for objecting is that ‘the burden or expense of producing the requested materials would be disproportionate to the likely benefit, in light of the factors set out in Rule 201(c)(3).’” (Carlson v. Jerousek (2016) 68 N.E.3d 520, 529 quoting Ill. S. Ct. R. 214(c) [eff. July 1, 2014].)
“Significantly, the discovery rules envision that the responding party will search for, identify, and produce the information specifically requested by the other party. They do not permit the requesting party to rummage through the responding party's files for helpful information. Under Rules 213 and 214, a party must request specific information relevant to the issues in the lawsuit from the other party, which then searches its own files and electronic storage media for responsive information and produces that information.” See (Carlson v. Jerousek (2016) 68 N.E.3d 520, 529 quoting Ill. S. Ct. R. 213 [eff. Jan. 1, 2007]; Ill. S. Ct. R. 214(a) [eff. July 1, 2014].)
“Supreme Court Rule 213(d) [134 Ill.2d R. 213(d)], requires a party to serve a sworn answer or an objection to an interrogatory.” (Id.; see also, Senese v. Climatemp, Inc. (1997) 289 Ill. App. 3d 570, 583 [“trial court characterized the plaintiff's answers as nonresponsive and ordered the plaintiff to answer interrogatories and complete discovery within 21 days.”])
Further, “[u]nder Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213(f), ‘[u]pon written interrogatory, a party must furnish the identities and addresses of witnesses who will testify at trial’ and for each lay witness ‘must identify the subjects on which the witness will testify.’” (Crane v. Midwest Sanitary Serv., Inc., 2017 Ill. App. 5th 160107, 14 [Ill. App. Ct.] quoting Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(f)(1) [eff. Jan. 1, 2007].)
Moreover, under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213(i), “[a] party has a duty to seasonably supplement or amend any prior answer or response whenever new or additional information subsequently becomes known to that party.” (Crane v. Midwest Sanitary Serv., Inc., 2017 Ill. App. 5th 160107, 14 [Ill. App. Ct.] quoting Ill. S. Ct. R. 213(i) [eff. Jan. 1, 2007].)
“Truthful disclosure is the object of all discovery procedures.” (Zagorski v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2016) 54 N.E.3d 296, 308 citing Buehler v. Whalen (1977) 70 Ill.2d 51, 67.) Stock objections and fractional disclosures render our discovery rules and procedures meaningless. (Buehler, supra, 70 Ill.2d at 67.)
“Such tactics delay the search for truth, waste judicial resources, and should not be condoned by the parties or the trial court. [The Court] hope[s] that this will serve as an admonition that asserting an objection followed by a litany of hollow grounds, without the intention or means to defend those grounds, is an abuse of the discovery process that may warrant sanctions. In addition, litigants are reminded that a bald objection preserves nothing for review.” (Zagorski, supra, at 54 N.E.3d 308.)
“The rules governing discovery give great discretion to the trial court, and its exercise of discretion will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion” (Perona v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 2014 Ill. App. 130748, 7 [Ill. App. Ct. 2014] citing Leeson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1989) 190 Ill. App. 3d 359, 366.)
“The parties must facilitate discovery between themselves and attempt to resolve disputes without intervention from the trial court if possible.” (Ibrahim v. Reprod. Genetic Inst., 2013 Ill. App. 120113, 24-25 [Ill. App. Ct. 2013].)
“Supreme Court Rule 201(k) instructs the parties to make reasonable attempts to resolve discovery differences before making a motion with respect to discovery in the trial court. Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(k) (eff. July 30, 2014). Further, the rule provides in pertinent part as follows:
‘The parties shall facilitate discovery under these rules and shall make reasonable attempts to resolve differences over discovery. Every motion with respect to discovery shall incorporate a statement that counsel responsible for trial of the case after personal consultation and reasonable attempts to resolve differences have been unable to reach an accord or that opposing counsel made himself or herself unavailable for personal consultation or was unreasonable in attempts to resolve differences.’” (Id., quoting Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(k) [eff. July 1, 2002].)
“The failure of the plaintiff to answer the interrogatories twice served upon him and his failure to comply with an order of the court directing him to answer alone justified the exclusion of the witness. The sanction imposed, while severe, was less drastic than the dismissal of his complaint and judgment on the remaining pleadings — a sanction permitted by rule 19-12(3) if a party does not comply with an order entered under the discovery rules.... (Ashford v. Ziemann (1984) 99 Ill. 2d 353, 371 quoting Rosales v. Marquez (1965) 55 Ill. App. 2d 203, 209.)
“Discovery is not a tactical game. (Zagorski v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2016) 54 N.E.3d 296, 308 citing Williams v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co. (1981) 83 Ill.2d 559, 566.)
“Discovery is intended as, and should be, a cooperative undertaking by counsel and the parties, conducted largely without court intervention, for the purpose of ascertaining the merits of the case and thus promoting either a fair settlement or a fair trial.” (Zagorski v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2016) 54 N.E.3d 296, 308 citing Williams, supra, 83 Ill.2d at 566.)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
