Cangelosi v. Capasso
Decision Date | 30 June 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 2-05-0643.,2-05-0643. |
Parties | John CANGELOSI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrizio CAPASSO, Rockford Radiology Associates, P.C., Todd D. Alexander, Individually, Todd D. Alexander, S.C., Thomas Dahlberg, and Rockford Memorial Hospital, d/b/a Positive Reflections, NFP, Defendants. (Richard D. Gaines, Contemnor-Appellant). |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Richard D. Gaines, Eugene G. Doherty, Angela C. Bresnahan, Holmstrom & Kennedy, P.C., Rockford, for Richard D. Gaines.
Michael P. Schostok, Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard, P.C., Waukegan, Robert G. Black, Law Offices of Robert G. Black, Naperville, for John Cangelosi.
Attorney Richard D. Gaines appeals from an order finding him in direct civil contempt of court and imposing a $50 fine for noncompliance with an order directing that he turn over notes authored by Lisa Bruening, a respondent in discovery. The issue is whether Bruening's notes, which contain her recollection of relevant events, which were authored within a day of the events, prior to any litigation, and which were not turned over to an attorney for 22 months, are protected by either the attorney-client privilege or the work product privilege. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that neither privilege protects the notes. With respect to the trial court's order finding respondent in direct civil contempt, we affirm the trial court's order and sanction, and we remand.
On October 14, 2003, plaintiff, John Cangelosi, filed a medical malpractice complaint against various defendants. According to the complaint, following a skydiving accident on April 12, 2003, plaintiff was admitted to Rockford Memorial Hospital (the Hospital) with several fractures, and he remained there until April 23, 2003. Plaintiff alleged that, as a result of the negligence of the Hospital and other defendants, he suffered severe, permanent damage to his spine and was permanently disabled. On April 7, 2005, plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Bruening as a respondent in discovery.
On January 16, 2004, plaintiff served written interrogatories upon the Hospital, requesting information about "statements from any witness other than yourself or, if a corporation, of anyone other than an officer, director, managing agent, or foreman." On February 15, 2005, the Hospital responded that it had However, the Hospital objected to production of the notes, based on the attorney-client and work product privileges.
On March 24, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of Bruening's notes. The Hospital responded on April 29, 2005. Attached to the response was a transcript of Bruening's court-ordered deposition and a copy of Bruening's affidavit.
In her affidavit, Bruening disclosed that on April 14 and 15, 2003, she was a registered nurse at the Hospital and attended to plaintiff. During the course of Bruening's 12½-hour shift, plaintiff experienced a change in his condition and could no longer move his extremities. Bruening was concerned that "the change in the patient's condition, if permanent, would be a bad outcome" and that "this is the kind of situation which may very well develop into a lawsuit." Bruening believed that because she was one of the persons who was attending to plaintiff when his condition changed, her care "might be put at issue in a subsequent lawsuit." Bruening "wanted to preserve [her] own recollections of the events of the evening of April 14-15, 2003, so that in the event of a lawsuit [she] and/or [her] attorney would be in a better position to defend [her] conduct." Therefore, during the evening of April 15, 2003, Bruening "made approximately 2½ pages of notes about [her] recollection of the events of the evening." Bruening did not share her notes with anyone until giving them to Gaines when she met with him on February 9, 2005.
At her deposition, Bruening testified that her notes memorialized factual things that she saw, factual things that she did, and factual things that she saw other people do. The notes include things that the doctors may have said during her shift regarding plaintiff's care. After completing her notes, Bruening placed them in a folder in her kitchen cabinet.
On May 13, 2005, the trial court ruled that Bruening's notes were not protected by the attorney-client or work product privilege and ordered Gaines to turn over the notes. On June 9, 2005, Gaines advised the trial court that he would not be turning over the notes, and the trial court found Gaines in direct civil contempt of court. Gaines indicated that he intended to appeal the trial court's order but asked that the order contain a provision allowing the contempt to be purged by turning over the notes. The trial court's June 9 order reflected the imposition of a $50 fine and provided that Gaines could purge himself of contempt by producing a copy of the notes to all parties. Gaines timely appeals.
When an individual appeals a finding of direct civil contempt arising from noncompliance with a discovery order, we must necessarily review the propriety of the discovery order. In re Marriage of Bonneau, 294 Ill.App.3d 720, 723, 229 Ill.Dec. 187, 691 N.E.2d 123 (1998). If the discovery order is improper, the finding of contempt must be reversed. Bonneau, 294 Ill.App.3d at 723, 229 Ill.Dec. 187, 691 N.E.2d 123. Generally, discovery rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, but the applicability of a privilege is reviewed de novo. Sterling Finance Management, L.P. v. UBS PaineWebber, Inc., 336 Ill.App.3d 442, 446, 270 Ill.Dec. 336, 782 N.E.2d 895 (2002).
Supreme Court Rule 201(b)(2) provides, in pertinent part:
To be entitled to the protection of the attorney-client privilege, a claimant must show that (1) a statement originated in confidence that it would not be disclosed; (2) it was made to an attorney acting in his legal capacity for the purpose of securing legal advice or services; and (3) it remained confidential. Rounds v. Jackson Park Hospital & Medical Center, 319 Ill. App.3d 280, 285-86, 253 Ill.Dec. 438, 745 N.E.2d 561 (2001). "The work product doctrine provides a broader protection than the attorney-client privilege and is designed to protect the right of an attorney to thoroughly prepare his case and to preclude a less diligent adversary attorney from taking undue advantage of the former's efforts." Fischel & Kahn, Ltd. v. van Straaten Gallery, Inc., 189 Ill.2d 579, 591, 244 Ill.Dec. 941, 727 N.E.2d 240 (2000), citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11, 67 S.Ct. 385, 393-94, 91 L.Ed. 451, 462 (1947).
Gaines argues that Gaines also argues that, "because the [n]otes also reflect Bruening's own writings made in reasonable anticipation of future litigation, they are also protected by the work product privilege." We conclude that neither privilege applies.
Turning first to the claim of attorney-client privilege, the critical issue is whether Bruening's notes were a communication made to an attorney for the purpose of securing legal advice. Rounds is instructive on this issue. In Rounds, a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff sought to discover a nurse's written statement and other nurses' incident reports, which detailed the sequence of events that transpired at the hospital. The nurse who prepared the statement provided an affidavit in which she averred that she prepared it because she "`believed that this matter would likely result in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re the Marriage of David Newton
...Industries, Inc. v. Berkman, 399 Ill.App.3d 456, 482, 340 Ill.Dec. 55, 927 N.E.2d 794 (2010) (quoting Cangelosi v. Capasso, 366 Ill.App.3d 225, 230, 303 Ill.Dec. 767, 851 N.E.2d 954 (2006)). However, under the facts of this case, we find that Grund and Leavitt's refusal to comply with the c......
-
Klaine v. S. Ill. Hosp. Servs.
...order, we must necessarily review the propriety of the discovery order. Cangelosi v. Capasso, 366 Ill.App.3d 225, 227, 303 Ill.Dec. 767, 851 N.E.2d 954 (2006). In fact, requesting that the circuit court enter a contempt order is a proper procedure to seek immediate appeal of a discovery ord......
-
Holland v. Schwan's Home Serv., Inc.
...in the file that reveals “the theories, mental impressions, or litigation plans” of Schwan's attorney. Cangelosi v. Capasso, 366 Ill.App.3d 225, 303 Ill.Dec. 767, 851 N.E.2d 954 (2006) (nurse's notes were not protected under the work-product doctrine where they did not contain or disclose t......
-
Jiotis v. Burr Ridge Park Dist. & John Doe
...for an abuse of discretion. Wisniewski, 221 Ill.2d at 457, 303 Ill.Dec. 818, 851 N.E.2d 1243; see Cangelosi v. Capasso, 366 Ill.App.3d 225, 227, 303 Ill.Dec. 767, 851 N.E.2d 954 (2006) (court reviews discovery order in appeal arising from contempt for noncompliance with discovery order; dis......
-
Privilege
...of securing legal advice or services; and (3) it remained confidential. John Cangelosi v. Capasso, Rockford Radiology Associates , 851 N.E.2d 954, 366 Ill.App.3d 225, 303 Ill.Dec. 767 (2006). In Illinois, the insurer insured privilege (not widely recognized outside of Illinois), is an offsh......
-
Privilege
...of securing legal advice or services; and (3) it remained confidential. John Cangelosi v. Capasso, Rockford Radiology Associates , 851 N.E.2d 954, 366 Ill. App.3d 225, 303 Ill.Dec. 767 (2006). In Illinois, the insurer insured privilege (not widely recognized outside of Illinois), is an off-......
-
Privilege
...of securing legal advice or services; and (3) it remained confidential. John Cangelosi v. Capasso, Rockford Radiology Associates , 851 N.E.2d 954, 366 Ill.App.3d 225, 303 Ill.Dec. 767 (2006). In Illinois, the insurer insured privilege (not widely recognized outside of Illinois), is an offsh......
-
Privilege
...of securing legal advice or services; and (3) it remained confidential. John Cangelosi v. Capasso, Rockford Radiology Associates , 851 N.E.2d 954, 366 Ill. App.3d 225, 303 Ill.Dec. 767 (2006). In Illinois, the insurer insured privilege (not widely recognized outside of Illinois), is an off-......