In deciding whether to give a party extra time to respond to a request to admit, can a court consider the other party's failure to comply with another rule? The first district says "yes."
Plaintiffs who fail to heed the disclosure rule, which governs specified cases implicating $50,000 or less in damages, face the extinguishment of their claim.
On June 30, 2003, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, reversed and remanded the order of the Circuit Court of Cook County denying the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiffs' answers to requests for admissions submitted to them pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 216, 134 Ill.2d R. 216.
On April 17, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a trial court may not tax as costs the professional fee charged by a nonparty treating physician for his participation in an evidence deposition.
Litigators from both the plaintiffs' and defense bar like the amended rule's new three-class system for opinion witnesses: lay, independent expert, and controlled expert.
Don't underestimate the importance of interrogatories and other forms of written discovery as a way to glean information that can strengthen your case.
Rule 213, introduced a few years ago to solve problems caused by old Rule 220, is causing problems of its own. The Supreme Court Rules Committee has proposed another fix for the rule governing admission of opinion testimony.
Interrogatories and depositions each have their strengths and weaknesses; here are basic guidelines for deciding when to use which discovery technique.
On August 20, 2001, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, reversed the trial court and granted the plaintiff insurance company a new trial, holding that the defendant had violated the disclosure requirements of Supreme Court Rule 213. 177 Ill 2d R 213.