Burdess v. Cottrell, Inc.
174 N.E.3d 69
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Gregory Burdess sued Cottrell, GM, and Auto Handling Corporation (AHC) for injuries sustained when he fell from a vehicle-transport rig; Continental Indemnity (Continental) intervened under 820 ILCS 305/5(b) to protect a workers’ compensation lien.
- Plaintiffs served written discovery under Ill. S. Ct. Rules 213 and 214 on Continental; Continental asserted a "nonparty" objection (limited role as lienholder), produced Gregory’s comp file, but declined broader party-style discovery.
- The circuit court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel, overruled Continental’s objections, ordered fuller responses, and imposed daily sanctions; Continental sought a "friendly contempt" finding to appeal whether a §5(b) intervenor is a party for discovery rules.
- While that appeal was pending, plaintiffs issued a deposition subpoena seeking (inter alia) nonparty Jack Cooper employee claim forms and injury reports; Continental moved to quash arguing location, relevance, HIPAA/privacy, and undue burden.
- The court granted the motion to quash in part (deposition location; limited production of Gregory’s comp file with redactions) but denied it as to nonparty injury reports and ordered inspection/production; the court found Continental in contempt for refusal. Appeals were consolidated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an employer/intervenor under 820 ILCS 305/5(b) is a party subject to discovery under Ill. S. Ct. Rules 213/214 | Continental intervened and therefore became a party and must comply with party discovery rules. | Intervention under §5(b) is limited to protection of the lien; intervenor is not a party for Rule 213/214 purposes and thus not subject to those discovery mandates. | Court held §5(b) intervenor is not a party for Rules 213/214; discovery orders and sanctions based on those rules were improper and reversed. |
| Whether the subpoenaed nonparty workers’ compensation claim files and injury reports were discoverable (relevance and proportionality/burden) | The injury reports and claim information are relevant to AHC’s notice of dangerous conditions and prior similar incidents; plaintiffs sought only nonmedical injury summaries. | Much of the requested nonparty comp files are private, voluminous, and would impose an undue burden and disproportionate cost relative to Continental’s lien; production would violate privacy/HIPAA and other privileges. | Court held the injury-report information was relevant. But producing full nonparty comp claim files was disproportionate (unrebutted affidavit showed >$200k burden vs lien ~ $128,898) and that portion of the order was reversed. The court remanded for a proper proportionality balancing as to the injury-report data; portions quashing production of full files and requiring redacted Gregory file were affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reda v. Advocate Health Care, 199 Ill. 2d 47 (contempt order for violating discovery order is final and appealable)
- Norskog v. Pfiel, 197 Ill. 2d 60 (standard of review and when de novo review applies)
- Madison Two Assocs. v. Pappas, 227 Ill. 2d 474 (where another statute governs intervention, that statute controls procedural limits)
- Sjoberg v. Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc., 8 Ill. App. 2d 414 (§5(b) intervention limited to protecting lien; intervenor not given trial participation absent plaintiff consent)
- Pederson v. Mi-Jack Products, Inc., 389 Ill. App. 3d 33 (intervenor limited to ensuring court protects lien)
- Jackson v. Polar-Mohr, 115 Ill. App. 3d 571 (intervention under the Act limited to protecting the lien; intervenor may be treated as nonparty)
- Sheppard v. Rebidas, 354 Ill. App. 3d 330 (court must protect interests of nonparty employer-intervenor asserting a lien)
- Brandt v. John S. Tilley Ladders Co., 145 Ill. App. 3d 304 (intervenor’s purpose is to protect lien; not to participate prematurely in discovery/trial)
- Mistler v. Mancini, 111 Ill. App. 3d 228 (trial court’s discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Kunkel v. Walton, 179 Ill. 2d 519 (discovery limited by relevance and Illinois constitutional privacy interests)
- Trimble v. Olympic Tavern, Inc., 239 Ill. App. 3d 393 (prior accidents relevant to notice/dangerousness)
- Turgeon v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 258 Ill. App. 3d 234 (prior accidents admissible to show notice)
- Mikus v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 312 Ill. App. 3d 11 (same)
- Bonneau, In re Marriage of, 294 Ill. App. 3d 720 (invalid discovery order requires reversal of contempt judgment)