Mahoney v. Gummerson, 980 N.E.2d 1220

Mahoney filed a civil action against Cox and Gummerson for civil conspiracy to murder while Cox was incarcerated.
Mahoney subpoenaed the Department of Corrections seeking the identity and statements of a confidential informant.
The Department moved to quash; the trial court conducted in camera review and ordered disclosure.
The Department sought vacatur and certification of questions; the court certified two questions for appellate review.
The court held that 735 ILCS 5/8-802.3(b) does not compel disclosure in a civil action lacking a court proceeding involving a felony or misdemeanor, with a limiting qualification.
The second certified question was not addressed as the first question resolved the issue and the case was remanded to the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does 8-802.3(b) preclude CI disclosure in a civil murder-for-hire action with no criminal prosecution?	Mahoney.	Department.	Yes; 8-802.3(b) precludes disclosure.
If not precluded, must balancing show disclosure outweigh confidentiality?	N/A	N/A	Not reached; second question not addressed.

First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128 (1976) (guides standard for reviewing certified questions in some contexts)
Grundy v. Lincoln Park Zoo, 2011 IL App (1st) 102686 (2011) (certified-question review; de facto significance when no party briefs)
Department of Public Aid ex rel. Davis v. Brewer, 183 Ill. 2d 540 (1998) (statutory interpretation; plain meaning governs)
Kraft, Inc. v. Edgar, 138 Ill. 2d 178 (1990) (statutory construction; avoid surplus language)
Cochrane's of Champaign, Inc. v. Illinois Liquor Control Comm’n, 285 Ill. App. 3d 28 (1996) (informant privilege discussed in civil context)
Willis v. Department of Law Enforcement, 61 Ill. App. 3d 495 (1978) (distinction between tort and crime; informant privilege impact)