Returning Subscriber?
Not a Subscriber to Litigation Pathfinder?
Get the full text of this legal issue, including links to cited primary law, along with unlimited access 1,000’s of other legal issues…and more!
Area of Law: | Litigation Practice & Procedure, Litigation Practice and Procedure |
Keywords: | ; Sanction; Violation; Discovery; Rule; Pretrial; Dismiss |
Jurisdiction: | Illinois |
Cited Cases: | None |
Cited Statutes: | None |
Date: | 03/01/2016 |
Rule 219(c) empowers the trial court to impose sanctions on a party who violates discovery rules. Shimanovsky v. General Motors Corp., 181 Ill.2d 112, 120 (1998). Only a clear abuse of discretion justifies reversal of the trial court’s decision on a motion for discovery sanctions. Shimanovsky, 181 Ill.2d at 120. In Shimanovsky, our supreme court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed a lawsuit as a sanction against the plaintiffs for destructive testing of evidence essential to the defense. However, "Sanctions *** should be imposed to promote discovery, not to punish the noncomplying party. [Citation.] Thus the entry of a default or dismissal under Rule 219(c) should be employed as a last resort." Humboldt-Armitage Corp. v. Illinois Fair Plan Ass’n , 86 Ill.App.3d 888, 890-91 (1980).
Zahran v. Sud, 2016.IL.142397-U (Ill. App. Dist. 1 2016) (not precedential).
Date: March 1, 2016
[…]
Subscribe to Litigation Pathfinder
To get the full-text of this Legal Memorandum ... and more!
(Month-to-month and annual subscriptions available)
Get the full text of this legal issue, including links to cited primary law, along with unlimited access 1,000’s of other legal issues…and more!