Defendants dismissed without prejudice can be named as respondents in discoveryBy Tal C. ChaikenBench and Bar, May 2018The Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, recently joined the First District in holding that a plaintiff may use the respondent in discovery statute to name a person who has already been dismissed as a defendant in the same case.
Discovery in construction litigation: Tread lightlyBy Stanley N. Wasser & Howard W. FeldmanConstruction Law, May 2018It is important for us to take care in how we respond to discovery requests—including the making of boilerplate discovery objections.
Carlson v. Jerousek: Second District finds right to privacy outweighs needs of civil discoveryBy Laura Castagna & Amelia S. BuragasTort Law, February 2018Carlson provides a good reminder to practitioners that while discovery reaches information that is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant information, there are indeed limits imposed by a party’s right to privacy.
A preliminary review of the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot ProgramBy Mariangela Seale & Sarah FinchBench and Bar, February 2018With over half a year of the pilot program behind us, a review of the nuts and bolts of the MIDPP and a look at its practical application are in order.
Boilerplate objections in discovery—Tread lightlyBy Stanley N. WasserFederal Civil Practice, December 2017Are you addicted to responding to discovery requests with boilerplate objections? Well your cure might be a read of Judge Mark W. Bennett’s March 13, 2017 Memorandum Opinion in Liguria Foods, Inc. v. Griffith Labs., Inc.
Challenges litigators face serving discovery in EuropeBy David W. AubreyInternational and Immigration Law, December 2017This article will discuss a few examples of the various European Blocking Statutes, specifically those of France, Germany, and Switzerland.
Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot ProjectBy Deidre BaumannFederal Civil Practice, December 2017Practitioners should keep in mind that the discovery obligations set forth in the Standing Order Regarding Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) and, with very limited exceptions, do not permit the parties to opt out.
Say goodbye to boilerplate objections and responses to discovery requestsBy George S. Bellas & Misty J. CyganCivil Practice and Procedure, May 2017For many attorneys and law firms it is standard practice to object to most, if not all, discovery requests with the boilerplate language that a request is overly broad or unduly burdensome. This practice necessitates more meet and confer conferences and motions to compel resulting additional costs to litigate. The 2015 amendments to Rule 34 were intended to curtail this type of practice. However, up until recently judges have been dillydallying in enforcing the new rule.
Zagorski v. Allstate Insurance Company: Stock discovery objections fail to pass muster with 5th DistrictBy Richard L. Turner, Jr.Insurance Law, August 2016In a decision issued on May 16, 2016, the 5th District Appellate Court in Zagorski v. Allstate Insurance Company provided an analysis of the problems inherent in replying with stock objections in discovery responses based upon relevancy or privilege, without detailing or adequately providing a basis for such objections.
Interstate depositions and discovery—Making discovery easierBy Patrick M. KinnallyCivil Practice and Procedure, July 2016Take a look at 735 ILCS 35/1-- Illinois’ version of the Uniform Interstate Deposition and Discovery Act. It will save you time and a lot of your client’s money.
Zagorski v. Allstate Insurance Company: Stock discovery objections fail to pass muster with 5th DistrictBy Richard L. Turner, Jr.Civil Practice and Procedure, June 2016In a decision issued on May 16, 2016, the 5th District Appellate Court in Zagorski v. Allstate Insurance Company provided an analysis of the problems inherent in replying with stock objections in discovery responses based upon relevancy or privilege, without detailing or adequately providing a basis for such objections.
Discovery depositions: A crash courseBy Angelica W. WawrzynekYoung Lawyers Division, December 2014Inevitably someone higher in the food chain will ask you, the junior associate, to cover a deposition for them. If (when) this happens, do not panic. Here’s an overview that will keep you on track.
So you want to subpoena a party’s e-mails?By George S. Bellas & Steve FordCivil Practice and Procedure, November 2014Many courts across the United States have quashed subpoenas on the basis that an Internet service provider cannot be compelled to disclose a party’s e-mails pursuant to a civil subpoena.
Proposed changes to federal discovery rules put premium on early case assessmentBy Daniel ThiesFederal Civil Practice, April 2014Assuming these significant changes are adopted, lawyers practicing in federal court must become familiar with them and be prepared for the additional responsibilities they impose early in the life cycle of a case.
Update on expert practice: Expert discoveryBy Jo Anna PollockFederal Civil Practice, December 2013Save the date for "Experts Exposed: Expert Practice in Federal Court from A to Z," which will take place on February 21, 2014.
Court upholds use of absent witness’ discovery depositionBy Robert T. ParkCivil Practice and Procedure, November 2013In the recent decision of Calloway v. Bovis, the appellate court upheld jury awards totaling nearly $10 million dollars against a construction manager in a case arising from a trench collapse that killed a father and seriously injured his son
Application of discovery rules to requests to admitBy Kevin LovelletteGovernment Lawyers, June 2012One issue that has recently seen increased litigation is whether Requests to Admit are discovery devices subject to the requirements of discovery rules and orders of court.
Discovery of social media: Document requests in a friend request worldBy Timothy J. Chorvat & Laura E. PelanekCivil Practice and Procedure, April 2012To date, there are no reported cases in Illinois regarding the discoverability of social media data, although these materials are being produced in discovery and introduced into evidence.
FRCP 45—The toolbox of discovery has pending amendmentsBy Ambrose V. McCallFederal Civil Practice, March 2012All Illinois counsel who practice in federal court may want to calendar a few dates in late 2012 or early 2013 to not only check on the status of FRCP 45, but to review their office procedures to see if they comply with the provisions detailing how we use one of our primary tools for conducting discovery.
Sanctions and spoliationBy Hon. Barbara CrowderCivil Practice and Procedure, August 2011Knowing the potential and most frequently used sanctions may assist counsel in evaluating what steps to take when faced with the loss or destruction of evidence.
Admitting a party’s discovery depositionBy Jeffrey A. ParnessBench and Bar, June 2011The case of Berry v. American Standard, Inc., 382 Ill. App. 3d 895 (5th Dist. 2008) prompted the recent amendment to Rule 212(a)(5) allowing into evidence an unavailable party’s discovery deposition pursuant to the “sound discretion” of the court when it “will do substantial justice between or among the parties.”
In-sitesGovernment Lawyers, June 2011Some resources for those interested in e-discovery.
Obtaining documents abroad: A primer for Illinois attorneysBy Timothy J. Chorvat & Matthew A. WlodarczykCivil Practice and Procedure, May 2011A look at the law relating to obtaining documents from sources abroad, and some suggestions on how to maximize the likelihood of obtaining useful information.
Admitting a party’s discovery depositionBy Jeffrey A. ParnessCivil Practice and Procedure, March 2011A recent amendment to the Illinois Supreme Court Rules allows into evidence an unavailable party’s discovery deposition pursuant to the “sound discretion” of the court when it “will do substantial justice between or among the parties.”
