Williams v. A. E. Staley Mfg. Co., 53236

• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: UNDERWOOD; SIMON
• 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.
• Docket Number: No. 53236,53236
• Decision Date: 20 January 1981

Page 252

416 N.E.2d 252 83 Ill.2d 559, 48 Ill.Dec. 221 Vernon E. WILLIAMS, Appellant,
v.
A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellee. No. 53236. Supreme Court of Illinois. Jan. 20, 1981.

[83 Ill.2d 560]

Page 253

[48 Ill.Dec. 222] Hillary H. Hallett, Alton (Sidney Z. Karasik, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.

Vincent J. Hatch, of Donovan, Hatch & Constance, Belleville, for appellee.

UNDERWOOD, Justice:

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 [83 Ill.2d 561] 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[83 Ill.2d 562]

Page 254

[48 Ill.Dec. 223] 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:

"(k) Reasonable Attempt to Resolve Differences Required. Every motion with respect to discovery shall incorporate a statement that after personal consultation and reasonable attempts to resolve differences the parties have been unable to reach an accord. The court may order that reasonable costs, including attorney's fees, be assessed against a party or his attorney who unreasonably fails to facilitate discovery under this provision." (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:

"(d) To curtail undue delay in...