Allen v. PEORIA PARK DISTRICT
968 N.E.2d 1199
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiffs were seasonal employees of Peoria Park District who were terminated; they alleged breach of contract and personal injury.
- Trial court dismissed counts under 2-615 and 2-619 with leave to amend; plaintiffs could not amend due to lack of discovery.
- Court allowed discovery to proceed despite no operative complaint on file, over defendant’s objection.
- Defendant sought a protective order; trial court denied it and lead counsel was held in civil contempt to permit immediate appeal.
- Appellate issue concerns whether discovery could be ordered with no complaint on file and whether contempt was proper.
- Court ultimately reversed the contempt, held discovery improperly ordered while dismissing, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery may be ordered when no complaint is on file | Allen/Franklin rely on Rule 201 regarding broad discovery. | No discovery without a pending complaint; Owen v. Mann controls. | Discovery before complaint is improper; order reversed. |
| Whether the contempt finding against counsel was proper | Contempt was warranted to obtain timely appeal of discovery order. | Contempt improperly used to facilitate discovery under a premature dismissal. | Contempt reversed; judgment reversed and remanded. |
| Whether the dismissal with leave to amend was appropriate given lack of facts | Plaintiffs sought discovery to develop pleading; dismissal should be without prejudice to allow amendment. | At-will employee policy precludes contractual rights; dismissal with prejudice appropriate. | Court did not decide merits of dismissal; reversed due to improper discovery order. |
| Whether the employee manual and at-will language foreclose any potential claim | Manual may not bar a potential illegality; discovery could reveal improper termination. | Manual at-will provisions and policy disclaimers defeat contractual claims. | Not resolved on the issue; remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norskog v. Pfiel, 197 Ill. 2d 60 (Ill. 2001) (contempt appealability and discovery review)
- Owen v. Mann, 105 Ill. 2d 525 (Ill. 1985) (discovery must illuminate issues; no complaint on file improper)
- Beale v. EdgeMark Financial Corp., 279 Ill. App. 3d 242 (Ill. App. 1996) (limited discovery before claim development; abuse of fishing expeditions)
- Yuretich v. Sole, 259 Ill. App. 3d 311 (Ill. App. 1994) (limits of discovery when information is within defendant's knowledge)
- John Burns Construction Co. v. City of Chicago, 234 Ill. App. 3d 1027 (Ill. App. 1992) (allow discovery to define information not within plaintiff's knowledge)
- Ashley v. Scott, 266 Ill. App. 3d 302 (Ill. App. 1994) (filing a complaint without factual basis sanctionable)