Daewoo International v. Monteiro
2014 IL App (1st) 140573
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Daewoo paid $14.5 million to AMT LLP for pig iron it never received and sought discovery in New York arbitration to trace the funds; New York court authorized discovery and issued commissions to Illinois.
- On January 28–29, 2013, Daewoo petitioned the Cook County circuit court under Ill. S. Ct. R. 204(b) for subpoenas to depose/obtain documents from Luis Eduardo Monteiro (an AMT principal); the court granted the petition on January 29, 2013.
- Monteiro had actual notice of the subpoena (communications between counsel and multiple mailings/certificates of service), but did not move to quash or appeal within 30 days; he later filed motions to quash and produced some documents intermittently.
- The Illinois court repeatedly ordered Monteiro to produce documents and appear for deposition (multiple orders between March and November 2013); New York issued commissions clarifying scope of discovery.
- Monteiro filed a motion to vacate portions of the November 14, 2013 order on December 12, 2013 (claiming Rule 204(b) noncompliance and Brazilian residence), the court denied the motion on January 24, 2014 and ordered deposition with sanctions for noncompliance.
- Monteiro appealed the January 24, 2014 order, but the appellate court found the final, appealable Illinois judgment was the January 29, 2013 Rule 204(b) order and held Monteiro’s appeal was untimely; the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Daewoo’s Rule 204(b) petition satisfied pleading/proof requirements to issue subpoena in Illinois | Monteiro argued Daewoo failed to allege/prove he "resides, is employed, transacts business in person, or is found" in Cook County as Rule 204(b) requires | Daewoo argued Monteiro had actual knowledge, evidence showed Illinois contacts (apartment, bank accounts, transactions), and Rule 204(b) was satisfied; also argued waiver | Court did not reach merits because it dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction (see second row) |
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction (timeliness of appeal) | Monteiro asserted Rule 301 permits immediate appeal from a Rule 204(b) discovery order and appealed the January 24, 2014 order | Daewoo argued the final, appealable order was the January 29, 2013 Rule 204(b) grant and Monteiro failed to appeal within 30 days or file a timely postjudgment motion; thus appeal untimely and jurisdiction lacking | Appeal dismissed: appellate court lacked jurisdiction because Monteiro did not file a timely notice of appeal from the January 29, 2013 final order nor a timely postjudgment motion to toll the appeal period |
Key Cases Cited
- Eskandani v. Phillips, 61 Ill. 2d 183 (1975) (Rule 204(b) discovery order is final and appealable because the Illinois proceeding consists solely of the petition)
- Keener v. City of Herrin, 235 Ill. 2d 338 (2009) (untimely postjudgment motion or appeal deprives appellate court of jurisdiction)
- Norskog v. Pfiel, 197 Ill. 2d 60 (2001) (discovery orders generally reviewable via contempt proceedings when in-state action)
- People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32 (2009) (appellate courts must independently consider subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Manning v. City of Chicago, 407 Ill. App. 3d 849 (2011) (section 2-1203 requires postjudgment motions be filed within 30 days or seek extension within that period)