Doe 1 v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago
2017 IL App (1st) 150109
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Two minor plaintiffs sued the Chicago Board of Education, Edison Park Elementary, a teacher, and another minor for injuries from alleged repeated sexual contact by students in a school bathroom (complaints filed 2012; amended adding defendants and battery claims).
- Plaintiffs’ parents testified in depositions they had no personal knowledge of the incidents, could not identify specific dates or numbers of occurrences, and derived knowledge from their children.
- Defendants sought depositions of the minor plaintiffs; plaintiffs moved for a protective order demanding forensic interviews instead of attorney-conducted depositions, citing risk of psychological harm and submitting a treating physician’s letter.
- The trial court declined to require forensic interviews, ordered independent medical examinations (IMEs) by court-appointed child psychiatrists, and adopted a protective deposition protocol incorporating many doctor recommendations but allowing attorney-conducted depositions with special procedures.
- Plaintiffs refused to present the children for deposition, were held in friendly contempt and fined $1, and appealed contending the court abused its discretion by not ordering forensic interviews.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a protective order requiring forensic interviews instead of attorney-conducted depositions | Forensic interviews are necessary to avoid severe psychological harm to the children; Rule 201(c)(1) requires weighing need vs. harm | Discovery rights and depositions are fundamental; court may tailor procedures to protect minors while preserving defense rights | Court did not abuse discretion; it reasonably supervised discovery, appointed IME doctors, and fashioned protective deposition procedures rather than mandating forensic interviews |
Key Cases Cited
- Norskog v. Pfiel, 197 Ill. 2d 60 (Ill. 2001) (contempt sanctions may permit appellate review of discovery orders)
- Reda v. Advocate Health Care, 199 Ill. 2d 47 (Ill. 2002) (discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Slatten v. City of Chicago, 12 Ill. App. 3d 808 (Ill. App. Ct. 1973) (right to discovery deposition is fundamental)
- Cedric Spring & Associates, Inc. v. N.E.I. Corp., 81 Ill. App. 3d 1031 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980) (trial court must balance truth-seeking with protection from harassment)
- Atwood v. Warner Electric Brake & Clutch Co., 239 Ill. App. 3d 81 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (Rule 201 allows flexible discovery supervision)
- Zimmerman v. Village of Skokie, 174 Ill. App. 3d 1001 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988) (courts must protect interests of minors and disabled persons where guardians/counsel neglect those interests)
- Burton v. Estrada, 149 Ill. App. 3d 965 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986) (court has duty and discretion to protect minor plaintiffs’ interests)
- In re A.W., 397 Ill. App. 3d 868 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) (child need not testify where testimony would cause psychological harm in non-adversarial juvenile proceedings)