Skotticelli v. Club Misty, Inc.
941 N.E.2d 204
Ill. App. Ct.2010Background
- Plaintiff Skotticelli was injured Feb. 5, 2006 inside Tequila Roadhouse, a tavern owned by Club Misty, Inc.
- Plaintiff filed an action Apr. 16, 2007 against Club Misty for negligence and Dramshop Act liability.
- On Aug. 28, 2007, plaintiff served Rule 216 requests to admit; Club Misty denied with a response signed by president Schulte.
- Schulte had no personal knowledge of the facts and relied on representations from defense counsel; discovery included deponents of Schulte and former employees.
- April 23, 2009, plaintiff moved to strike the denials and deem the requests admitted; trial court granted the motion and certified a Rule 308 question.
- Club Misty argued denials were based on attorney investigation conducted by Hodges; appellate review addressed whether reliance on attorney investigation negates Rule 216 sanctions and concluded the denials were permissible and not automatically admitted, remanding for proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 216 denials based on defense counsel's investigation are permissible | Skotticelli argues denials must be based on personal knowledge | Misty argues attorney investigation can furnish denials | No; denials based on attorney investigation are permissible and may not alone trigger admission; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vision Point of Sale, Inc. v. Haas, 226 Ill.2d 334 (Ill. 2007) (held unsigned corporate responses can satisfy Rule 216 under 1-109)
- Brookbank v. Olson, 389 Ill. App.3d 683 (Ill. App. 2009) (Rule 216 responses may be signed by corporate representative; not required to be personally signed by party)
- Moy v. Ng, 341 Ill.App.3d 984 (Ill. App. 2003) (Moy interpreted Rule 216 to require a party to respond, not solely attorney certification)
- Vision Point of Sale, Inc. v. Haas, 226 Ill.2d 334 (Ill. 2007) (overruled Moy to permit corporate responses signed by a corporate representative)
- Campen v. Executive House Hotel, Inc., 105 Ill.App.3d 576 (Ill. App. 1982) (discussed corporate memory and attorney-assisted defense)
- Szczeblewski v. Gossett, 342 Ill.App.3d 344 (Ill. App. 2003) (good-faith obligation to secure information within corporate control)
- Chicago Park District v. Chicago & North Western Transportation Co., 240 Ill.App.3d 839 (Ill. App. 1992) (cited regarding corporate memory and investigation by counsel)