Door Properties, LLC v. Nahlawi
2021 IL App (1st) 182568-U
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- Door Properties obtained a ~ $750,000 judgment against Ayad Nahlawi and served a post-judgment citation (with a document rider) seeking records from many entities (Request 20) to discover assets or indirect compensation.
- Nahlawi repeatedly objected (vagueness, overbreadth, relevance) and produced minimal responses; the trial court overruled objections and narrowed Request 20 twice (timeframe: 2010–present; scope: documents about the relationship between Nahlawi and the listed entities).
- Over several years Door Properties produced evidence suggesting indirect payments to Nahlawi (e.g., third parties paying his legal fees), prompting further discovery into business relationships and potential hidden compensation.
- Nahlawi delayed compliance, later sought a protective order under Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(c)(3) alleging disproportionality (burden of email review), which the trial court denied and ordered production by a set date.
- Nahlawi refused to comply, sought a “friendly” contempt, and the court held him in indirect civil contempt, imposing sanctions of $100 per day until he produced the responsive documents.
- Nahlawi appealed, challenging the denial of the protective order (relevance and proportionality) and the contempt/sanctions; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Door) | Defendant's Argument (Nahlawi) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Request 20 is relevant to citation to discover assets | Request 20 seeks documents showing Nahlawi’s relationships and indirect compensation from listed entities, which could be applied to satisfy the judgment | Request 20 is not about Nahlawi’s assets or future interests and thus is irrelevant to citation proceedings | Relevant — discovery may reach information that leads to assets; court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether Request 20 is disproportionate/ unduly burdensome under Rule 201(c) | Burden is manageable; Nahlawi should have access to his emails and prior rulings narrowed scope and timeframe | Production (searching two terabytes of email) is unduly burdensome and disproportionate to need | Denial of protective order affirmed — defendant waived late-proportionality claim and court acted within discretion |
| Whether contempt and $100/day sanction were improper | Contempt was warranted after years of delay and repeated refusals to comply with multiple rulings; sanctions proper to compel compliance | Contempt was sought only to challenge discovery order; sanctions excessive | Contempt and sanctions affirmed — trial court reasonably found willful noncompliance and delay tactics; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Schak v. Blom, 334 Ill. App. 3d 129 (2002) (post-judgment supplementary proceedings are to be liberally construed to discover assets or assets held by third parties)
- Willeford v. Toys ’R’ Us–Delaware, Inc., 385 Ill. App. 3d 265 (2008) (trial court has wide discretion to issue protective orders and limit discovery)
- Redelmann v. K.A. Steel Chemicals, Inc., 377 Ill. App. 3d 971 (2007) (trial court has authority to control its docket and sanction discovery abuse)
- Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (1984) (appellate review limited when record/transcript is absent)
- Webster v. Hartman, 195 Ill. 2d 426 (2001) (appellate court cannot review trial-court factual findings for manifest error without transcript)