Williams v. A. E. Staley Mfg. Co.
Decision Date | 20 January 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 53236,53236 |
Citation | 83 Ill.2d 559,416 N.E.2d 252,48 Ill.Dec. 221 |
Parties | , 48 Ill.Dec. 221 Vernon E. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellee. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Hillary H. Hallett, Alton (Sidney Z. Karasik, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Vincent J. Hatch, of Donovan, Hatch & Constance, Belleville, for appellee.
On October 31, 1977, plaintiff, Vernon Williams, filed his complaint in the circuit court of Madison County alleging he had suffered injuries while working for an insulation contractor at a plant owned by defendant, A. E. Staley Manufacturing Company. On December 7, defendant filed its interrogatories and a request to produce documents, asking that plaintiff respond within 28 days. On January 26, 1978, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and defendant, on March 1, filed identical requests to produce and interrogatories, requesting that plaintiff respond within 30 days. On March 16, plaintiff filed his interrogatories and request that defendant produce certain documents. Plaintiff filed answers to defendant's interrogatories in April, but produced none of the requested material. On August 31, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to produce the requested documents. Notice of the filing of this motion was mailed to plaintiff on August 30, according to the proof of service accompanying the motion, but no hearing date or time was specified therein. It is represented to be the practice in Madison County for the clerk to send to all counsel notice of the dates upon which identified motions will be heard. No such notice appears in this record. On September 12 the circuit court allowed the motion and directed that the clerk send to all counsel copies of the dismissal order. The clerk indicated in a minute note that this was done, although plaintiff maintains he did not receive one. On November 27 the plaintiff filed his "Compliance," submitting certain documents in response to the request to produce made nearly a year earlier. Three days later plaintiff filed a "Motion to Reinstate" the complaint, alleging the failure to supply the documents had been inadvertent and that they had been in the office of counsel for plaintiff on the day the dismissal order was entered. Defendant filed objections thereto, but both counsel and the court treated the motion as a petition filed pursuant to section 72 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 110, par. 72) despite the fact the motion did not refer to section 72 and was neither verified nor supported by affidavit. When the circuit court, after a December 27 hearing, granted the motion, defendant appealed, citing Rule 304(b)(3), which deals with a "judgment or order granting or denying any of the relief prayed in a petition under section 72 of the Civil Practice Act" (58 Ill.2d R. 304(b)(3)). The appellate court reversed (80 Ill.App.3d 981, 36 Ill.Dec. 304, 400 N.E.2d 724), and we granted leave to appeal.
We observe at the outset that these appeals, involving a not insignificant waste of time, effort and money, are the direct result of a failure on the part of both parties to comply with the rules of this court. Plaintiff was dilatory in supplying the requested documents, and the defendant ignored the requirements of our Rule 201(k) (58 Ill.2d R. 201(k)), as did plaintiff in a later motion to strike defendant's answer because defendant had allegedly failed to produce requested material. Our Rule 201(k) states:
(58 Ill.2d R. 201(k).)
The committee comments to this rule state of paragraph (k):
"Patterned after the practice in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Northern Districts of Illinois, it is designed to curtail undue delay in the administration of justice and to discourage motions of a routine nature." (58 Ill.2d R. 201(k), Committee Comments.)
The present Rule 12(d) of the Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois provides:
Similar, but somewhat more detailed rules have been adopted as Rule 11 of the Central District of Illinois and Rule 14 of the Southern District.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, after which our rule was patterned, has made it clear that it will not tolerate submission of discovery disputes in the absence of compliance with its Rule 12(d). In considering a plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's objections to interrogatories and to compel answers, the court refused to allow expenses to either party. The court made it clear that it was making an exception in even considering the merits of the motion (which requested much less drastic relief than the motion to dismiss involved in the present case), stating:
Goodman v. International Business Machines Corp. (N.D.Ill.1973), 59 F.R.D. 278, 279-80.
Our rule is less specific, but to the same effect. Our discovery rules, like the Federal discovery rules (see Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders (1978), 437 U.S. 340, 356-57, 98 S.Ct. 2380, 2392, 57 L.Ed.2d 253, 268; United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (D.D.C.1979), 83 F.R.D. 323, 327), contemplate that discovery will generally proceed without judicial intervention and that the great majority of discovery questions will be resolved by counsel themselves. This intention is apparent from Rule 201(k)'s requirement that every discovery motion contain a statement that the parties have conferred and, after reasonable efforts to do so, have been unable to resolve their differences, and that belief is also evidenced by the fact that the direct supervision of discovery by the court under certain circumstances which is provided for in Rule 201(c)(2) was considered "unusual enough to call for special mention in the rule." (58 Ill.2d R. 201(c)(2), Committee Comments.) To paraphrase what this court said in Monier v. Chamberlain (1966), 35 Ill.2d 351, 357, 221 N.E.2d 410:
"(T)he increasing complexity and volume of present-day litigation involves frequent recourse to discovery procedures, (and seeking judicial intervention in discovery before consultation between counsel and good faith efforts to resolve differences) would serve only to inhibit pretrial settlements, increase the burden of already crowded court calendars, and thwart the efficient and expeditious administration of justice."
Judge Irving R. Kaufman of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in speaking of discovery in the Federal courts, noted that "(t)he whole discovery...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adoption of Schumacher, In re
...v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co. (1980), 80 Ill.App.3d 981, 36 Ill.Dec. 304, 400 N.E.2d 724, rev'd on other grounds (1981), 83 Ill.2d 559, 48 Ill.Dec. 221, 416 N.E.2d 252; Lady v. Montgomery Ward & Co. (1980), 80 Ill.App.3d 69, 35 Ill.Dec. 512, 399 N.E.2d 346.) Further, a court order typica......
-
Kaull v. Kaull
...in order for the trial court to order an examination pursuant to Rule 215. Mark James cites Williams v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co., 83 Ill.2d 559, 48 Ill.Dec. 221, 416 N.E.2d 252 (1981), in support of this argument. In Williams, our supreme court stated:“In proper circumstances Rule 201(......
-
Mittelman v. Witous
...v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co. (1980), 80 Ill.App.3d 981, 36 Ill.Dec. 304, 400 N.E.2d 724, rev'd on other grounds (1981), 83 Ill.2d 559, 48 Ill.Dec. 221, 416 N.E.2d 252; Robertson v. Robertson (1984), 123 Ill.App.3d 323, 78 Ill.Dec. 593, 462 N.E.2d 712.) Notwithstanding that plaintiff fai......
-
Consolidation Coal Co. v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.
...procedures which contemplate that discovery generally proceed without judicial intervention. (Williams v. A. E. Staley Manufacturing Co. (1981), 83 Ill.2d 559, 564, 48 Ill.Dec. 221, 416 N.E.2d 252.) It would only serve to "increase the burden of already crowded court calendars, and thwart t......
-
Table of Cases
...355 App 3d 926, 823 NE2d 1074, 219 Ill Dec 488 (1st Dist 2005), §16:313 table oF cases c-527 Williams v. A. E. Staley Manufacturing , 83 Ill2d 559, 416 NE2d 252, 48 Ill Dec 221 (1981), §§25:271, 25:340 Williams v. Allen, 273 Ill App3d 893, 652 NE2d 1286, 210 Ill Dec 310 (1st Dist 1995), §32......
-
Interrogatories
...unable to resolve a discovery dispute after at least two letters and one personal conference. [ Williams v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing , 83 Ill 2d 559, 416 NE2d 252, 48 Ill Dec 221 (1981).] Use the 201(k) conference to try to reach a compromise with your opponent. For example, the proponent ......
-
Interrogatories
...unable to resolve a discovery dispute after at least two letters and one personal conference. [ Williams v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing , 83 Ill 2d 559, 416 NE2d 252, 48 Ill Dec 221 (1981).] Use the 201(k) conference to try to reach a compromise with your opponent. For example, the proponent ......
-
Interrogatories
...unable to resolve a discovery dispute after at least two letters and one personal conference. [ Williams v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing , 83 Ill 2d 559, 416 NE2d 252, 48 Ill Dec 221 (1981).] Use the 201(k) conference to try to reach a compromise with your opponent. For example, the proponent ......