Monier v. Chamberlain, 39799
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | UNDERWOOD |
| Citation | 221 N.E.2d 410,18 A.L.R.3d 471,35 Ill.2d 351 |
| Parties | , 18 A.L.R.3d 471 Roger L. MONIER, Appellee, v. Vernon CHAMBERLAIN. Appeal of Eugene H. RENNICK, Jr., et al. |
| Docket Number | No. 39799,39799 |
| Decision Date | 23 September 1966 |
Page 410
v.
Vernon CHAMBERLAIN.
Appeal of Eugene H. RENNICK, Jr., et al.
[35 Ill.2d 352]
Page 412
Davis, Morgan & Witherell, Peoria, for appellants.O. B. Pace, Jr., and Peter J. Paolucci, Lacon, for appellee.
UNDERWOOD, Justice.
This action was originally brought by plaintiff, Roger Monier, to recover damages for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident allegedly caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by defendant, Vernon Chamberlain. Defendant's answer to the complaint was filed by Eugene H. Rennick, Jr., attorney for Chamberlain retained by Country Mutual Insurance Company, Chamberlain's liability insurer, and also the liability insurer of the plaintiff.
Subsequently, two motions supported by affidavit were filed by plaintiff requesting
Page 413
that Chamberlain and Country Mutual be ordered to produce various documents, reports, memoranda and statements for plaintiff's inspection and copying. An answer in opposition to the motions was filed, and after a hearing thereon, an order was entered directing production of the requested material. Following their refusal to comply, attorney Rennick and Country Mutual were found to be in contempt of court and each fined $50.Appellants Rennick and Country Mutual then sought direct review in this court of the contempt order, but since no proper jurisdictional basis appeared, the cause was transferred to the Appellate Court for the Third Judicial District. Monier v. Chamberlain, 31 Ill.2d 400, 202 N.E.2d 15.
[35 Ill.2d 353] The appellate court (66 Ill.App.2d 472, 213 N.E.2d 425) upheld the production order in part and reversed in part, and the cause was remanded to the circuit court with directions to modify the production order accordingly, and allow appellants to purge themselves of contempt by compliance therewith. The appellate court then granted a certificate of importance conferring jurisdiction upon this court. See our Rule 32(2), Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, chap. 110, par. 101.32(2).
The production order entered by the circuit court under our Rule 17 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, chap. 110, par. 101.17) requires the appellants to produce the following materials:
'1. A copy and contents of the automobile insurance policy No. A 434284 in force between the Country Mutual Insurance Company and the Defendant, Vernon Chamberlain, on March 20, 1960.
'2. All medical reports, hospital records, letters of correspondence from or to all physicians, surgeons, psychologists, psychiatrists, hospitals, clinics, or other medical personnel concerning the health, physical and mental condition of Roger L. Monier from March 20, 1960, up to the date of employment of counsel for the Defendant.
'3. All statements made by the Plaintiff or members of his family relative to the subject of litigation, whether signed or unsigned.
'4. All memoranda made by personnel of the Country Mutual Insurance Company of conversations with the Plaintiff and members of his family relative to the matter of litigation.
'5. All written statements of witnesses, whether signed or unsigned, obtained by agents, employees or other personnel of the Country Mutual Insurance Company obtained prior to the employment of Eugene Rennick, Attorney at Law, Toulon, Illinois, or Robt. A. Barnes, Attorney at Law, Lacon, Illinois, attorneys for the Defendant in the cause.
'6. All reports, photographs and statements obtained[35 Ill.2d 354] by agents, employees, investigators, adjusters or other personnel of the Country Mutual Insurance Company relative to or growing out of the transaction complained of on March 20, 1960, which were obtained prior to the employment of Eugene Rennick, Attorney at Law, Toulon, Illinois, and Robert A. Barnes, Attorney at Law, Lacon, Illinois, Attorneys for the Defendant in this cause.
'7. All medical reports or memoranda concerning the health and physical or mental condition of the Plaintiff, Roger L. Monier, as it existed prior to the occurrence complained of.'
The insurance policy was produced and Country Mutual filed a sworn response indicating that it did not possess a statement of the plaintiff. Appellants refused to produce the remaining materials, contending that the order does not specify the materials requested with sufficient particularity and that, in any event, much of the material sought is exempted from disclosure under our Rule 19--5(1) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1965,
Page 414
chap. 110, par. 101.19--5(1)). The appellate court was of the opinion that paragraph 5 lacked the specificity required by Rule 17 and reversed the trial court on that point, but upheld the remainder of the circuit court's production order. Since there is no cross appeal, we do not consider the propriety of the appellate court's ruling concerning paragraph 5 of the order.The first question we turn to is whether the order sufficiently designates the material required to be produced so as to enable the appellants to reasonably comply therewith, i.e., to enable them to determine, upon a search of their files, what materials are properly contemplated by the order. Rule 17 provides:
'A party may at any time move for an order directing any other party or person to produce specified documents, relating to the merits of the matter in litigation, for inspection and to be copied or reproduced, or produce[35 Ill.2d 355] for inspection or to be photographed objects or tangible things relative to the merits of the said matter, or permit access to real estate for the purpose of making surface or subsurface inspections or surveys or photographs, or disclose information calculated to lead to the discovery of the whereabouts of any of the items. On the hearing the court may make any order that may be just. If the party or person claims that the item is not in his possession or control or that he does not have information calculated to lead to discovery of its whereabouts, he may be ordered to submit to examination in open court or by deposition regarding the same.' Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, chap. 110, par. 101.17.
While appellants maintain that each document sought...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Montague
...relationship between the witness and defense counsel and the statement was 'clearly not privileged,' and citing Monier v. Chamberlain, 35 Ill.2d 351, 221 N.E.2d 410, 18 A.L.R.3d 471 (1966), said that it was 'equally clear that the statement was not part of the attorney's work product.' 249 ......
-
Skolnick v. Altheimer & Gray, No. 87320
...it is intended to reveal not only facts admissible at trial, but also facts that may lead to admissible evidence. Monier v. Chamberlain, 35 Ill.2d 351, 357, 221 N.E.2d 410 (1966); see also Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 32-33, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 2207-08, 81 L.Ed.2d 17, 26-27 (198......
-
State v. McClaren, 2007AP2382-CR.
...is to promote "the ascertainment of the truth and ultimate disposition of the lawsuit in accordance therewith[.]" Monier v. Chamberlain, 35 Ill.2d 351, 221 N.E.2d 410, 417 (1966). Through discovery, mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts will be achieved. See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S.......
-
Kaull v. Kaull, 2–13–0175.
...to be “flexible and adaptable to the infinite variety of cases and circumstances appearing in the trial courts.” Monier v. Chamberlain, 35 Ill.2d 351, 355, 221 N.E.2d 410 (1966). The objective under the discovery rules is to obtain the “ ‘expeditious and final determination of controversies......
-
Pre-Suit Activities
...to testify are discoverable. [See SCR 201(b)(1), 213(f), 214. For a discussion as to work product privilege, see Monier v. Chamberlain , 35 Ill 2d 351, 221 NE2d 410 (1966), and Consolidation Coal Co. v. Bucyrus-Erie Co. , 89 Ill 2d 103, 432 NE2d 250 (1982).] Before you know whether a given ......
-
Production of Documents and Other Things
...[SCR 214.] This may be done by either specifying an individual item, or by specifying a category of items. [See Monier v. Chamberlain , 35 Ill2d 351, 221 NE2d 410 (1966) (rejecting a requirement of minute particularization and holding that categorical designations achieve the required speci......
-
Interrogatories
...would be inadmissible at trial is discoverable if it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. [ Monier v. Chamberlain , 35 Ill 2d 351, 221 NE2d 410 (1965); Redelman v. Claire Sprayway, Inc. 375 Ill App3d 912, 874 NE2d 230, 314 Ill Dec 320 (1st Dist 2007).] In evaluating the ......
-
Physical and Mental Examinations
...the course of that party’s treatment. Those records are therefore protected by the physician-patient privilege. [ Monier v. Chamberlain , 35 Ill 2d 351, 221 NE2d 410 (1966).] Plaintiffs are therefore not entitled to obtain defendant’s medical records unless, by some affirmative act, such as......