Client Alert - Litigation and Dispute Resolution Update
Illinois Supreme Court Clarifies Procedureal Requirements Concerning Requests to Admit
The Illinois Supreme Court recently issued an opinion that affects how courts will interpret and enforce Supreme Court Rule 216, which relates to Requests to Admit. In overruling various appellate court decisions, the Court provided some relief from the draconian regime that had come to surround Requests to Admit.
Requests to Admit are devices used to establish undisputed facts in order to narrow the issues in a lawsuit. Factual contentions are posed to parties, and must be answered under oath within 28 days. However, in the past ten years, Courts had come to interpret the procedural requirements for compliance set forth in Rule 216 very narrowly. The result was an analytical framework that could imperil entire cases if responses were deemed improper under the rule.
Much of that changed when the Illinois Supreme Court decided the case of Vision Point of Sale, Inc. v. Haas, No. 103140 (September 20, 2007). In this significant case, the Court addressed the standard for showing the "good cause" that is necessary to secure an extension of time to remedy non-compliance with a procedural requirement. In transforming a decade of jurisprudence, the Court rejected numerous court decisions, which held that mistake, inadvertence, or attorney neglect could not constitute good cause. The Court wrote, “We note that there is a broad overall policy goal of resolving cases on the merits rather than on technicalities . . . and that the post-Bright line of appellate court cases run directly counter to this principle.”
In addition, the Court clarified other procedural aspects of Requests to Admit. Notably, the Court overruled a judicial decision that was binding upon circuit courts in Chicago, which required parties to personally sign the responses and a sworn-to statement. Now, parties must simply provide a sworn statement. The Court also rejected previous requirements that responses be filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in order to be compliant, noting that the rule merely requires service of responses upon parties.
While the Illinois Supreme Court provided relief from the unduly harsh outcomes that often resulted from the prior structure, its decision also illustrates the need for litigants to engage experienced counsel familiar with the procedural aspects of litigation in Illinois courts.
Elvis D. Gonzalez represents clients in a wide range of litigation matters involving breach of contract, shareholder and partnership disputes, trade secret misappropriation, injunctive relief, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Mr. Gonzalez can be reached at 312-558-9779 or at egonzalez@elvisgonzalezltd.com.
|
|