Salvator v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp.
92 N.E.3d 529
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Larry and Marcia Salvator) sued Cleaver-Brooks alleging asbestos exposure from boilers and related products; an expedited schedule was set.
- Cleaver-Brooks maintained ~90,000 customer "index cards" and agreed to let plaintiffs inspect them; plaintiffs inspected and tabbed 5,077 cards for copying.
- Cleaver-Brooks objected to producing copies of most tabbed cards, asserting overbreadth, irrelevance, confidentiality, and that only 13 cards related to plaintiff’s identified jobsites.
- The trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of copies of the 5,077 tabbed cards, finding broad relevance (sales, product lines, state of the art, impeachment).
- Cleaver-Brooks refused to produce copies, sought a protective order and/or friendly contempt to preserve appellate rights; the court found Cleaver-Brooks in "friendly contempt" and imposed a $1 fine.
- On appeal the appellate court affirmed the discovery order, vacated the contempt finding and fine, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cleaver-Brooks waived relevance objections by allowing inspection but refusing to produce copies | Inspection amounted to production; Cleaver-Brooks thereby waived relevance objections and must produce copies | Inspection does not waive a relevance objection to copying/production; Cleaver-Brooks reserved right to review for relevance | Court held Cleaver-Brooks forfeited its relevance objection by voluntarily producing cards for inspection without reservation, so copies were producible |
| Whether the 5,077 tabbed cards were overbroad or an improper fishing expedition | Tabbed cards are relevant to scope of sales, product lines, corporate knowledge, state of the art, and impeachment; not an improper fishing expedition | Plaintiffs engaged in a fishing expedition; most tabbed cards unrelated to identified jobsites and irrelevant | Court found requests sufficiently narrow and relevant; distinguished overly broad precedent and upheld compelled production |
| Whether wide-ranging discovery here parallels All Asbestos Litigation (overbroad requests) | Plaintiffs’ request was limited (5,077 of 90,000) and tied to demonstrable discovery purposes | Defendant: analogous to All Asbestos Litigation; discovery was sweeping and improper | Court found the facts distinguishable from All Asbestos Litigation and concluded the request was not the prohibited kind of sweeping discovery |
| Whether Cleaver-Brooks’ refusal to comply with the order justified contempt | Plaintiffs sought enforcement; refusal was bad-faith delay | Cleaver-Brooks acted in good faith to preserve appellate rights and to test the order | Court of Appeals vacated the contempt finding and $1 fine, concluding refusal was made in good faith to preserve the issue for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Manns v. Briell, 349 Ill. App. 3d 358 (Ill. App. 2004) (relevance for discovery interpreted broadly; guidance on scope of discoverable material)
- In re All Asbestos Litigation, 385 Ill. App. 3d 386 (Ill. App. 2008) (discusses limits on sweeping discovery requests in asbestos litigation)
- D.C. v. S.A., 178 Ill. 2d 551 (Ill. 1997) (objectives of pretrial discovery and breadth of Rule 201)
- Gallagher v. Lenart, 226 Ill. 2d 208 (Ill. 2007) (distinguishes forfeiture from waiver; failure to timely assert rights)