Summary
The Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, affirmed the denial of Greif Packaging, LLC’s motion for reasonable expenses under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(e) following Taievion Anderson’s voluntary dismissal of a retaliatory-discharge action. The court held that Rule 219(e) expense shifting requires discovery-related misconduct or unreasonable noncompliance with discovery rules or orders. Adverse pretrial evidentiary rulings unrelated to discovery misconduct did not trigger the rule.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(e) authorizes expense shifting when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an action to avoid adverse pretrial rulings unrelated to discovery misconduct.
- Whether the pretrial rulings in this case were sufficiently connected to discovery issues to trigger Rule 219(e) expense shifting.
- Whether Greif preserved and adequately developed its alternative argument that Anderson engaged in discovery misconduct.
Holdings
- Discovery-related misconduct or evasion is a prerequisite to expense shifting under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(e); the rule does not authorize expense awards based solely on a voluntary dismissal taken to avoid adverse pretrial rulings.
- A voluntary dismissal taken after adverse pretrial rulings unrelated to discovery misconduct does not trigger expense shifting under Rule 219(e), even when the rulings concern the admissibility of witnesses or evidence.
- Greif forfeited its alternative discovery-misconduct argument by failing to sufficiently raise, develop, and preserve it in the circuit court and on appeal; in any event, the record provided no basis to disturb the circuit court's finding that no unreasonable discovery noncompliance occurred.
Key quotations
“Discovery misconduct is a prerequisite to Rule 219(e) expense shifting.” (¶ 29)
“A pretrial ruling’s connection to discovery issues cannot, on its own, trigger expense shifting.” (¶ 26)
Factual background
Greif terminated Anderson's employment after he failed to return a questionnaire directed to his physician, and Anderson brought a retaliatory-discharge action alleging termination for exercising rights under the Workers' Compensation Act. Before trial, the circuit court ruled on numerous motions in limine, excluding Anderson's medical expert, limiting his economic-damages expert, and finding the physician questionnaire admissible under the Petrillo doctrine. Anderson then voluntarily dismissed the action, prompting Greif to seek litigation expenses under Rule 219(e). The circuit court found that Anderson had not engaged in unreasonable discovery noncompliance or discovery misconduct.
Procedural history
Anderson filed a retaliatory-discharge action in the Will County circuit court in 2019. After the court denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and ruled on motions in limine, Anderson voluntarily dismissed the action under section 2-1009 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The circuit court granted the voluntary dismissal but denied Greif's request for $103,357.76 in Rule 219(e) expenses. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed.