Bright v. Dicke
| Decision Date | 27 October 1990 |
| Citation | 260 Ill.App.3d 768,633 N.E.2d 1283 |
| Parties | , 199 Ill.Dec. 292 Joan BRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Faith DICKE, Defendant-Appellant (Deloris Dicke and Stephanie Kearney, as Trustee of the Leonard E. Dicke Trust dated |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Eugene P. Daugherity (argued), Myers, Daugherity, Berry & O'Conor, Ltd., Ottawa, for Faith Dicke.
George C. Hupp, Jr. (argued), Hupp, Lanuti, Irion & Martin, P.C., Ottawa, for Joan Bright.
No attys. for Delores Dicke, Stephanie Kearney.
Faith Dicke (hereinafter defendant) filed an application for leave to appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308 (134 Ill.2d R. 308). We granted leave to appeal to consider whether a trial court has discretion under Supreme Court Rule 216 (134 Ill.2d R. 216) to allow a party to file a late response to a request to admit.
On January 21, 1993, plaintiff filed a two-count complaint alleging that defendant breached her fiduciary duties as trustee of the Leonard E. Dicke Trust and that she also breached a purported settlement agreement. On May 12, 1993, plaintiff filed a request for admission of facts and genuineness of documents pursuant to Rule 216. This request to admit was received in the office of defendant's attorneys on May 13. Defendant filed an unverified response on June 14, and plaintiff filed a motion to strike the response because it was both untimely and unverified. Thereafter, on June 24, defendant filed a motion for leave to file a late response, and plaintiff objected. Following a hearing, the trial court denied defendant's motion and it later made the requisite finding under Rule 308 to allow defendant to seek an interlocutory appeal.
Rule 216 provides in part:
In Johannsen v. General Foods Corp. (1986), 146 Ill.App.3d 296, 99 Ill.Dec. 851, 496 N.E.2d 544, defendant responded to plaintiff's request to admit with an unverified answer that was 22 days late. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion to strike the response and this court granted leave to appeal to address the following question:
"Whether or not it is an abuse of the Court's discretion to refuse to allow a late filing of a response to a Request to Admit Facts which was neither signed under oath nor by a party * * * and where there is no specific showing that the late filing results in prejudice or injustice to the party seeking the admissions." Johannsen, 146 Ill.App.3d at 298, 99 Ill.Dec. at 852, 496 N.E.2d at 545.
At the outset of our analysis in Johannsen, we noted that there appeared to be disagreement between the districts of the appellate court with regard to the application of Rule 216. We noted that the second district and two divisions of the first district had held that a trial court has discretion to relieve a tardy litigant from being bound by a failure to respond within 28 days. In contrast, the third, fifth and two divisions of the first district had consistently held "that a litigant's failure to file a timely response under Rule 216(c) results in automatic admission of the facts as stated in the request." Johannsen , 146 Ill.App.3d at 299, 99 Ill.Dec. at 853, 496 N.E.2d at 546.
It appears that this latter statement has created the impression, shared by the parties here as well as by some courts (see, e.g., Smoot v. Knott (1990), 200 Ill.App.3d 1082, 146 Ill.Dec. 831, 558 N.E.2d 794) and commentators (see Garner & Wolfe, Late Responses to Requests to Admit: When Should Courts Allow Them?, 78 ILL.B.J. 502 (1990)) that Johannsen held that a trial court has no discretion to allow a late response to a request to admit. While such a view is understandable in light of Johannsen's reference to automatic admission of facts under Rule 216, it is clear that the holding of Johannsen was much narrower and implicitly recognized the trial court's discretion. "On these facts, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the rule as it did, granting plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's response and deeming the facts requested as admitted." (Emphasis added.) Johannsen, 146 Ill.App.3d at 301, 99 Ill.Dec. at 854, 496 N.E.2d at 547.
Indeed, a close reading of Johannsen reveals that this court expressly declined to consider whether a trial court might, under other circumstances, properly allow a late response. "[E]ven were we to agree that the broad discretion of the trial court could be invoked for filing a tardy response pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 183 [citations], the case before us today would not present a suitable setting for so declaring." (Johannsen, 146 Ill.App.3d at 300, 99 Ill.Dec. at 854, 496 N.E.2d at 547.) That "suitable setting" is presented by this case, and we hold that a trial court has discretion under Supreme Court Rule 183 (134 Ill.2d R. 183) to allow a late response to a request to admit.
Rule 183 provides:
"Rule 183. Extensions of Time
[The] 1 court, for good cause shown on motion after notice to the opposite party, may extend the time for filing any pleading or the doing of any act which is required by the rules to be done within a limited period, either before or after the expiration of the time." 134 Ill.2d R. 183.
It is evident that answering a request to admit within 28 days is an "act which is required by the rules to be done within a limited period." Rule 183, by its own terms, grants a trial court discretion to allow a late response to a request to admit for "good cause." (Kismer v. Antonovich (1986), 148 Ill.App.3d 508, 102 Ill.Dec. 150, 499 N.E.2d 707.) To hold otherwise would ignore the plain language of the Rule.
Having determined that the trial court may allow a late response for "good cause", we now consider the meaning of that term. In Greene v. City of Chicago (1978), 73 Ill.2d 100, 22 Ill.Dec. 507, 382 N.E.2d 1205, the defendant appealed from the trial court's denial of its motion to file a late jury demand. The supreme court, citing both Rule 183 and section 59 of the Civil Practice Act (), held that mere inadvertance was not sufficient to constitute good cause. The court also rejected defendant's argument that good cause could be established by showing a lack of prejudice or inconvenience to the parties. Based on Greene, we find that good cause under Rule 183 requires more than inadvertance, mistake or lack of prejudice to the opposing party. We decline, however, to further define good cause for two reasons. First, a determination of good cause must be based upon the facts of each case and is within the discretion of the trial court. (Greene, 73 Ill.2d at 107-08, 22 Ill.Dec. at 511, 382 N.E.2d at 1209.) Second, defendant acknowledges that, aside from her claim that plaintiff was not prejudiced, she cannot establish good cause for the late filing of her response. Since lack of prejudice does not constitute good cause, the trial court's order denying defendant's motion for leave to file a late response is supported by the record, and any further discussion of good cause by this court would be dicta.
Finally, defendant urges us to adopt the position outlined by Justice Chapman of the fifth district in Smoot v. Knott (1990), 200 Ill.App.3d 1082, 146 Ill.Dec. 831, 558 N.E.2d 794. In Smoot the court reviewed the position of the various appellate divisions and districts regarding Rule 216 and concluded that the "preferable rule" was to grant the trial court discretion to allow late responses to requests to admit. The court's primary rationale was that Rule 216 is a discovery tool and trial courts have wide discretion to control and monitor discovery. The Smoot court suggested that trial courts should engage in a two step analysis when faced with a request to file a late response. Under Smoot, the first inquiry is whether the opposing party has been prejudiced by the late response. If no prejudice is shown "the trial court should generally allow a late response." (Smoot, 200 Ill.App.3d at 1098, 146 Ill.Dec. at 841, 558 N.E.2d at 804.) Where, however, the opposing party shows prejudice as a result of the late response, relief should only be granted for good cause under Rule 183.
We respectfully decline to adopt Smoot's two step analysis. In our opinion, the prejudice inquiry inappropriately places a burden on the party requesting the admission to show why a late filing should not be allowed. We do not believe a litigant should be required to justify the enforcement of a time limitation imposed by the supreme court rules. Such a burden should instead fall on the party who has failed to comply with the Rule. In addition, allowing parties, in the absence of prejudice, to file responses whenever they like changes the 28 day limitation of Rule 216 from a command to a suggestion. In our opinion, the purpose of the Rule, "which is to narrow the triable issues and to limit the cost and length of litigation" (Johannsen, 146 Ill.App.3d at 301, 99 Ill.Dec. at 854, 496 N.E.2d at 547), is better served by enforcing the 28 day limitation except where there is good cause to grant an extension.
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court and remand for further proceedings.
Affirmed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sassali v. DeFauw, 2-97-0590
...547, 191 Ill.Dec. 376, 623 N.E.2d 966 (1993)) or when the issue is governed by conflicting authority (see Bright v. Dicke, 260 Ill.App.3d 768, 199 Ill.Dec. 292, 633 N.E.2d 1283 (1994)). The question presented to this court in this appeal was answered long ago. The majority acknowledges that......
-
Savoy v. Haayer
... ... how it would convey such a blanket admission to the jury ... Striking plaintiff's request was well within its ... discretion. See Bright v. Dicke, 260 Ill.App.3d 768, ... 769 (1994). Moreover, plaintiff was given leave to file a ... proper request, so no prejudice accrued to ... ...
-
Bright v. Dicke
...in Rule 216 has expired." On Dicke's application, the appellate court allowed an appeal from the circuit court's order and affirmed. (260 Ill.App.3d 768.) Rejecting the notion that the 28-day deadline is absolute and inflexible, the court held that under Rule 183 (134 Ill.2d R. 183), a tria......
-
Cothren v. Thompson
...cause must be based upon the facts of each case and is within the discretion of the trial court." Bright v. Dicke, 260 Ill.App.3d 768, 771, 199 Ill.Dec. 292, 633 N.E.2d 1283, 1285 (1994). This case was not about defendant's alleged delay or a discovery sanction but instead focused on plaint......