2022 IL App (1st) 211313-U
Ill. App. Ct.2022Background
- Drury sued Liberty Principles PAC and Dan Proft for defamation and false-light invasion arising from 2014 campaign ads; plaintiff amended the complaint in 2018.
- Discovery was initially stayed; the stay was vacated in April 2019 and plaintiff later filed a motion to compel in September 2019 alleging defendants withheld discovery relevant to actual malice.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment in December 2019; plaintiff filed a Rule 191(b) affidavit claiming discovery deficits prejudiced his ability to oppose summary judgment.
- The trial court heard argument, then proceeded to rule on summary judgment without first granting plaintiff’s motion to compel; the court later explained it had lost sight of the motion and concluded parts of the motion sought discovery unrelated to the summary-judgment issues.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on September 13, 2021; Drury appealed arguing the court abused its discretion by deciding summary judgment before ruling on the motion to compel because some requested discovery was material to the actual-malice issue.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court abused its discretion by resolving summary judgment prematurely where at least some compelled discovery was relevant to rebutting actual malice and fairness required a ruling on the motion to compel first.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ruling on summary judgment before ruling on Drury’s motion to compel | Drury argued the court should rule on the motion to compel first because withheld discovery could produce evidence to oppose summary judgment on actual malice | Defendants argued Drury abandoned/prosecuted the motion inadequately and most requested discovery was irrelevant to actual malice, so the court could proceed with summary judgment | Reversed: court abused its discretion; plaintiff entitled to a ruling on the motion to compel before summary judgment where discovery reasonably might assist in resisting the motion |
| Whether Drury abandoned or failed to prosecute his motion to compel | Drury maintained he consistently sought a ruling and preserved the issue at hearings | Defendants claimed Drury acquiesced or neglected to press the motion and cited status reports and hearings | Rejected: record shows Drury consistently pursued relief and the trial court admitted losing sight of the motion; no abandonment found |
| Whether the discovery sought was relevant to the actual-malice issue | Drury argued some interrogatories and requests for admission were directly relevant and could lead to admissible evidence about defendants’ state of mind | Defendants contended only a small fraction of requests related to actual malice and the rest were irrelevant | Held for Drury: defendants conceded some requests were relevant; where any requested discovery reasonably may assist on actual malice, the motion to compel must be decided first |
| Remedy and procedural outcome | Drury sought denial of summary judgment and remand for further discovery and rulings on the motion to compel | Defendants sought affirmance of summary judgment | Appellate court reversed summary judgment as premature and remanded for the trial court to rule on the motion to compel and proceed consistent with that ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Adkins Energy, LLC v. Delta–T Corp., 347 Ill. App. 3d 373 (Ill. App. 2004) (trial court may properly stay discovery pending dispositive motion only when discovery would not assist resisting party)
- DOD Technologies v. Mesirow Insurance Services, Inc., 381 Ill. App. 3d 1042 (Ill. App. 2008) (no abuse in staying discovery when nonmoving party fails to show how discovery would aid in resisting dismissal)
- Evitts v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Corp., 359 Ill. App. 3d 504 (Ill. App. 2005) (court should not refuse discovery where it reasonably appears discovery might assist the nonmoving party)
- Mutlu v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 337 Ill. App. 3d 420 (Ill. App. 2003) (same principle: deny dismissal where discovery may assist resisting party)
- Ellis Realty v. Chapelski, 28 Ill. App. 3d 1008 (Ill. App. 1975) (moving party bears burden to call motions for hearing; abandonment may be found where movant neglects motion for long period)
- Pemberton v. Tieman, 117 Ill. App. 3d 502 (Ill. App. 1983) (discovery is fundamental and designed to ascertain truth and promote fair trial)
- Smith v. St. Therese Hospital, 87 Ill. App. 3d 782 (Ill. App. 1980) (defendant’s control of necessary facts justifies discovery before requiring plaintiff to establish case particularity)
- Beacham v. Walker, 231 Ill. 2d 51 (Ill. 2008) (appellate court not bound by party concessions)