Doe v. The Board of Education of the City of Chicago
2017 IL App (1st) 150109
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Two minor plaintiffs alleged repeated sexual contact with another minor at Edison Park Elementary during kindergarten–1st grade; parents lacked personal knowledge of specific dates or details.
- Plaintiffs sought a protective order to use forensic interviews instead of traditional attorney-conducted depositions, citing potential psychological harm; a clinician for one child recommended no deposition.
- The trial court appointed two independent child psychiatrists (IME); their reports found one child highly anxious and likely to shut down, the other with some narrative deficits, and recommended avoiding conventional depositions and suggested accommodations.
- The court denied the requested forensic-interview-only protective order but adopted a tailored deposition protocol (doctor’s office, limited in-room participants, child-sized furniture, breaks, three 60-minute sessions, live feed for others).
- Plaintiffs refused to present the children for deposition, were held in friendly contempt and fined $1; plaintiffs appealed the discovery/protective-order ruling via that contempt sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying a protective order requiring forensic interviews instead of attorney-conducted depositions | Forensic interviews are necessary to avoid retraumatizing minors; Rule 201 requires weighing need vs. harm | Trial court reasonably balanced discovery needs and child protection, using IME input and tailoring depositions | Court did not abuse discretion; affirmed |
| Whether minors’ mental-health concerns excused deposition attendance | Psychological harm would be substantial and Rule 201 protective order should prevent deposition | IME process and accommodations sufficiently protected minors while preserving defendants’ right to discovery | Court adopted accommodations; risk did not justify forbidding attorney depositions |
| Whether precedent for special protection of minors (Zimmerman/Burton) required a different result | Cites cases recognizing extra protection for minors and disabled persons | Those cases addressed neglect by guardians or different statutory contexts and are distinguishable | Precedent inapplicable to facts; court’s approach within discretion |
| Whether juvenile-case authority barring child testimony (In re A.W.) controls here | Child need not testify when testimony would cause psychological harm | This is adversarial civil litigation where child testimony is material and not cumulative | A.W. distinguishable; deposition testimony was relevant and necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Norskog v. Pfiel, 197 Ill. 2d 60 (discovery orders not ordinarily appealable; contempt can render them reviewable)
- Reda v. Advocate Health Care, 199 Ill. 2d 47 (discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Slatten v. City of Chicago, 12 Ill. App. 3d 808 (right to discovery deposition is fundamental)
- Cedric Spring & Associates, Inc. v. N.E.I. Corp., 81 Ill. App. 3d 1031 (trial court must balance truth-seeking with avoiding harassment)
- Zimmerman v. Village of Skokie, 174 Ill. App. 3d 1001 (courts should protect minors/disabled persons where guardians/counsel neglect protections)
- Burton v. Estrada, 149 Ill. App. 3d 965 (court’s duty to protect minors’ interests in certain contexts)
- In re A.W., 397 Ill. App. 3d 868 (juvenile best-interest proceedings may exclude child testimony if cumulative or harmful)
- People v. Wiatr, 119 Ill. App. 3d 468 (party asserting abuse of discretion bears burden of proof)