{ "id": 1156761, "name": "ANNA CLYMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEONARD HAYDEN, Indiv. and as Agent of Blessing Hospital, et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Clymore v. Hayden", "decision_date": "1996-03-28", "docket_number": "No. 4 \u2014 95 \u2014 0678", "first_page": "862", "last_page": "870", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "278 Ill. App. 3d 862" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "648 N.E.2d 337", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "341", "parenthetical": "holding that Rule 415(g)(ii) (134 Ill. 2d R. 415(g)(ii)) authorizes the trial court to impose sanctions on attorneys personally in criminal cases and suggesting that courts do so in lieu of - or in addition to - sanctions pertaining to restricting nondisclosed evidence" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 Ill. App. 3d 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 249166 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "568-69", "parenthetical": "holding that Rule 415(g)(ii) (134 Ill. 2d R. 415(g)(ii)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/271/0562-01" ] }, { "cite": "529 N.E.2d 218", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "221" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 Ill. 2d 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3218603 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "103" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/124/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "651 N.E.2d 1071", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1081" }, { "page": "1081" }, { "page": "1081" }, { "page": "1081" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "166 Ill. 2d 48", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 198891 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "67" }, { "page": "68" }, { "page": "68" }, { "page": "69" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/166/0048-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 691, "char_count": 16663, "ocr_confidence": 0.774, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.795208262074615e-08, "percentile": 0.49622777235275106 }, "sha256": "972a06a0fbb3468abfb902599952501adfd9ea62c3af853a99fcaf3150d63c28", "simhash": "1:d33bdc26df458c34", "word_count": 2634 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:33:42.611238+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ANNA CLYMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEONARD HAYDEN, Indiv. and as Agent of Blessing Hospital, et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn April 1993, plaintiff, Anna Clymore, sued defendants, Leonard Hayden, M.D. (Hayden), and Blessing Hospital (Blessing), for medical malpractice. In July 1995, the trial court granted defendants\u2019 motions for sanctions by dismissing the complaint with prejudice pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219 (134 Ill. 2d R. 219).\nPlaintiff appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by imposing the sanction of dismissal.\nWe affirm.\nI. BACKGROUND\nIn order to understand the context of this case when the trial court conducted the July 1995 hearing on defendants\u2019 motion for sanctions, a recitation of significant events in chronological order is required, as follows:\nApril 30, 1993 Plaintiff\u2019s counsel files a medical malpractice complaint, accompanied by an affidavit stating he had been unable to obtain a consultation with a health care professional, as required by section 2 \u2014 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 622 (West 1992)). (The affidavit extends for 90 days the filing period for the required health professional\u2019s report (health report).) 735 ILCS 5/2\u2014 622(2) (West 1992). Plaintiff fails to file the health report within 90 days.\nAugust 16, 1993 Hayden files a motion to dismiss because of plaintiff\u2019s failure to file a timely health report.\nSeptember 1, 1993 Blessing files a motion to dismiss because of plaintiff\u2019s failure to file a timely health report.\nSeptember 13, 1993 The trial court conducts a hearing, grants plaintiff an extension (to September 27, 1993) to file a health report, and continues the hearing on defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss.\nSeptember 23, 1993 Plaintiff files an amended complaint containing an inadequate health report.\nSeptember 28, 1993 Plaintiff files a motion for leave to file an amended complaint and an amended health report.\nOctober 4, 1993 The trial court grants plaintiff leave to file a second-amended complaint and an amended health report within 10 days and continues the hearing on defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss to November 1, 1993.\nOctober 14, 1993 Plaintiff files a second-amended complaint and an amended health report, which asserts a cause of action against both Blessing and Hayden. Plaintiff also requests that the November 1 hearing on the motions to dismiss be continued, which the court grants.\nDecember 20, 1993 The trial court denies defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss.\nDecember 23, 1993 Hayden sends plaintiff a request for production of documents, to be answered within 28 days pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 214 (134 Ill. 2d R. 214). Plaintiff does not respond.\nMarch 7, 1994 Plaintiff files her third-amended complaint.\nMarch 14, 1994 Hayden files an answer to the third-amended complaint and a motion to compel plaintiff\u2019s compliance with the request for production.\nApril 1, 1994 Plaintiff answers Hayden\u2019s request for production, without providing any explanation for the Vhmonth delay or seeking an extension of time to file her response. Hayden subsequently withdraws his motion to compel.\nMarch 22, 1994 Blessing files a motion to dismiss count II of the third-amended complaint.\nApril 4, 1994 The trial court grants plaintiff\u2019s request to continue the hearing on Hayden\u2019s motion to compel until April 18.\nApril 15, 1994 The trial court grants plaintiff\u2019s request to continue the hearing until May 2.\nMay 27, 1994 The trial court enters an order allowing Blessing\u2019s motion to dismiss count II and granting plaintiff 28 days to file an amended count II, which plaintiff files on June 24.\nJune 24, 1994 Blessing serves plaintiff with interrogatories and a request for production of documents. Plaintiff fails to answer within 28 days, in violation of Supreme Court Rule 213(c) (134 Ill. 2d R. 213(c)).\nJuly 8, 1994 Hayden forwards interrogatories to plaintiff, which plaintiff fails to answer.\nSeptember 16, 1994 Hayden files a motion to compel plaintiff to answer Hayden\u2019s interrogatories.\nOctober 17, 1994 The trial court grants Hayden\u2019s motion to compel and orders plaintiff to answer Hayden\u2019s interrogatories within 14 days. Plaintiff fails to answer.\nNovember 23, 1994 Hayden flies a motion for sanctions because of plaintiff\u2019s failure to answer interrogatories.\nDecember 8, 1994 The court grants Hayden\u2019s motion for sanctions, awards Hayden $295 in attorney fees, and orders plaintiff to answer Blessing\u2019s interrogatories and request for production within 21 days and Hayden\u2019s interrogatories within 7 days.\nDecember 15, 1994 Plaintiff sends answers and objections to Blessing\u2019s interrogatories.\nJanuary 24, 1995 Blessing replies to plaintiff\u2019s objections to the interrogatories; plaintiff\u2019s counsel fails to respond.\nFebruary 1995 Hayden\u2019s counsel unsuccessfully attempts to contact plaintiff\u2019s counsel by telephone to schedule plaintiff\u2019s deposition.\nFebruary 21, 1995 Because plaintiff\u2019s counsel fails to return his calls, Hayden\u2019s counsel sends him a letter stating that plaintiff\u2019s deposition will be scheduled for April 18, 1995, if such date was convenient.\nMarch 2, 1995 When plaintiff\u2019s counsel fails to respond to Hayden\u2019s counsel\u2019s letter, Hayden\u2019s counsel files a notice that plaintiff\u2019s deposition would be taken April 18, 1995. Neither plaintiff nor her counsel appears at the scheduled deposition.\nApril 21, 1995 Blessing serves plaintiff\u2019s counsel with a second request for production. Plaintiff\u2019s counsel fails to respond.\nApril 24, 1995 Blessing files a motion to compel answers to interrogatories.\nMay 5, 1995 Plaintiff confesses Blessing\u2019s motion to compel answers to interrogatories to which plaintiff had objected in December 1994, and the trial court orders plaintiff to answer the interrogatories by May 24, 1995, warning that failure to comply \u201cmay result in sanctions and/or dismissal.\u201d Plaintiff fails to answer until May 30, 1995.\nMay 5 and 12, 1995 Both defendants file motions for sanctions based on plaintiff\u2019s failure to appear at her deposition and for repeated noncompliance with court rules and orders.\nJuly 25, 1995 After hearing argument and considering memoranda files by all parties, the trial court grants defendants\u2019 motions for sanctions pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219 and dismisses plaintiff\u2019s complaint with prejudice.\nII. ANALYSIS\nPlaintiff contends the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing this case with prejudice. In particular, plaintiff argues that (1) her failure to appear for her discovery deposition provided an insufficient basis for sanctions or dismissal, and (2) the court erred in considering litigation related to problems with her complaint when ruling on defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss.\nThe trial court has discretion to impose a particular sanction, and this court will not reverse absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Sander v. Dow Chemical Co., 166 Ill. 2d 48, 67, 651 N.E.2d 1071, 1081 (1995). In determining an appropriate sanction, the trial court must weigh the competing interests of the parties\u2019 rights to maintain a lawsuit against the necessity of accomplishing the objectives of discovery and promoting the unimpeded flow of litigation. Sander, 166 Ill. 2d at 68, 651 N.E.2d at 1081. A court is justified in dismissing a cause of action for failure to abide by court orders only when the party dismissed has shown a deliberate and contumacious disregard for the court\u2019s authority. Sander, 166 Ill. 2d at 68, 651 N.E.2d at 1081.\nAs previously outlined, during the two years of this litigation, plaintiff consistently and deliberately disregarded judicial authority by failing to comply with discovery requests and court rules. At every stage of this case, plaintiff\u2019s counsel has caused delay: (1) failing to timely file a health report; (2) filing an insufficient health report; (3) failing to timely answer a request for production, requiring the filing of a motion to compel; (4) failing to answer interrogatories, requiring the filing of a motion to compel; (5) failing to comply with the trial court\u2019s order to answer interrogatories, requiring the filing of a motion for sanctions; (6) failing to pay attorney fees ordered by the court as sanctions; and (7) failing to appear for deposition. Plaintiff not only failed to present any reasonable excuse for these delays, but until the July 1995 hearing on defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss, plaintiff did not bother to provide any excuse \u2014 reasonable or not. The trial court based its dismissal on these repeated violations, and not on the single, egregious failure of plaintiff to attend her scheduled deposition.\nWe also note \u2014 although not necessary for our decision \u2014 that plaintiff\u2019s counsel continued this pattern of disregarding court rules before our court when he failed to timely file a docketing statement as required by Supreme Court Rule 312 (155 Ill. 2d R. 312). Plaintiff\u2019s counsel ultimately filed that statement only in response to this court\u2019s rule to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed.\nWhere, as in this case, it is apparent that a party has wilfully disregarded the authority of the court and such disregard is likely to continue, the interests of that party in the lawsuit must bow to the interests of the opposing party. Sander, 166 Ill. 2d at 69, 651 N.E.2d at 1081. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing this case with prejudice.\nAlthough we affirm, we suggest that the trial court could have made a more complete record at the July 1995 hearing on defendants\u2019 motions for sanctions that resulted in dismissal of plaintiff\u2019s case. When considering a motion for sanctions, a court not only can \u2014 but should \u2014 pointedly interrogate the noncomplying counsel on the record. A detailed record will assist the reviewing court to understand and review the trial court\u2019s exercise of discretion. Further, if attorneys realize they will be called upon to explain their conduct, that realization by itself may encourage them to comply with court rules and orders.\nAt the July 1995 hearing, plaintiff\u2019s counsel claimed that he assumed the April 19, 1995, deposition had been cancelled because defense counsel did not call the day before to confirm, as is the custom in Cook County (according to plaintiff\u2019s counsel). Plaintiff\u2019s counsel (whose offices are in Cook County) also claimed that his firm was unable to produce plaintiff for the deposition due to scheduling difficulties. Defense counsel argues persuasively that plaintiff\u2019s counsel had an obligation to inform defendants of scheduling conflicts and to learn and comply with local rules.\nOnly three possible explanations exist for plaintiff\u2019s failure to appear at her April 18, 1995, deposition: (1) plaintiff\u2019s counsel never informed her of the setting; (2) plaintiff\u2019s counsel initially told her to appear, but at some point prior to April 18 told her not to appear; or (3) plaintiff failed to appear of her own volition even though her lawyer told her to appear. Either of the first two explanations demonstrates serious disregard for the setting of depositions pursuant to supreme court rules. Regarding the second possible explanation, if plaintiff\u2019s counsel contacted plaintiff to instruct her not to appear because of counsel\u2019s scheduling difficulty, why did he not also contact either of defendants\u2019 attorneys to tell them as well? The third explanation is entirely implausible because plaintiff\u2019s counsel also failed to appear. The trial court should have carefully questioned plaintiff\u2019s counsel to determine precisely which of these explanations applied.\nBecause litigants continue to violate court orders and discovery rules, we emphasize here, as did the supreme court in People u. Wilk, 124 Ill. 2d 93, 103, 529 N.E.2d 218, 221 (1988), that court rules and orders are not merely suggestions to be complied with if convenient. Instead, they constitute obligations that counsel disregard at their personal peril and that trial courts must enforce. This record reveals a shocking mindset of plaintiff\u2019s counsel that deadlines \u2014 whether imposed by court order or supreme court rule \u2014 are of no importance and missing them is of no consequence. Counsel has acted as if judicial deadlines marked the time he had to begin to think about his compliance. We hope that our decision here, affirming the trial court\u2019s dismissal, will emphasize the fact that there are indeed consequences to ignoring court orders and rules.\nThe blatant disregard of judicial authority as demonstrated by counsel in Sander and in this case is all too commonplace. Trial courts deceive themselves if they think that attorneys appearing before them will accord any more respect to court orders and rules than the courts themselves show. We commend the court in this case for having the courage to dismiss when confronted with the deliberate noncompliance this record shows, and we urge other courts to do the same when presented with repeated violations of court orders and rules.\nThis discussion is particularly important in view of changes the Supreme Court of Illinois wrought last year in discovery rules (effective January 1, 1996). The changes both tighten the discovery process and give trial courts greater authority to govern it. Accordingly, with regard to the trial court\u2019s order in this case requiring plaintiff to pay $295 in attorney fees, we note that a court faced with wilful violations of discovery rules or court orders may impose significant sanctions on counsel personally. Supreme Court Rule 219(c), which sets forth the sanctions available for violations of court orders or discovery rules in civil cases, now reads in part as follows:\n\"In lieu of or in addition to the foregoing [list of sanctions], the court *** may impose upon the offending party or his or her attorney, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of reasonable expenses incurred as a result of the misconduct, including a reasonable attorney fee, and when the misconduct is wilful, a monetary penalty.\u201d (Emphasis added.) 166 Ill. 2d R. 219(c).\nBecause courts may hesitate to impose sanctions on attorneys personally, we emphasize that we take the supreme court at its word when it states in Rule 219(c) that courts may impose a monetary penalty on counsel for wilful violations of discovery rules and court orders. See People v. Foster, 271 Ill. App. 3d 562, 568-69, 648 N.E.2d 337, 341 (1995) (holding that Rule 415(g)(ii) (134 Ill. 2d R. 415(g)(ii)) authorizes the trial court to impose sanctions on attorneys personally in criminal cases and suggesting that courts do so in lieu of \u2014 or in addition to \u2014 sanctions pertaining to restricting nondisclosed evidence). The trial courts\u2019 inherent authority to impose personal sanctions upon attorneys provides another tool to use when faced with the need to balance the interests of both parties and to enforce discovery rules. Thus, as they administer discovery in civil cases, courts should not hesitate, where appropriate, to sanction \u2014 with significant fines\u2014 those attorneys who disregard court orders and rules.\nLast, we reject plaintiffs argument that the trial court, when hearing a motion for sanctions due to violations of court orders or rules, must somehow be limited to considering only the particular violation then before it. The way the parties manage a lawsuit constitutes a cumulative enterprise, and we will not impose blinders upon trial courts as they exercise their discretion in this important area. A trial court can \u2014 and should \u2014 consider past violations, explanations, court responses, and essentially the entire history of the particular litigation before it when deciding what action to take under Supreme Court Rule 219 (134 Ill. 2d R. 219). It should be too obvious to state, but in view of plaintiffs argument, we will state it anyway: the same violation that here resulted appropriately in dismissal with prejudice \u2014 because of plaintiffs counsel\u2019s history of egregiously disregarding court orders and rules \u2014 might, in a case without such a history, result in only minimal sanctions.\nV. CONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court\u2019s judgment.\nAffirmed.\nCARMAN and KNECHT, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Rick A. Gleason, of Rick A. Gleason & Associates, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Gena J. Awerkamp, of Schmiedeskamp, Robertson, Neu & Mitchell, of Quincy, for appellee Blessing Hospital.", "Jerry L. Brennan, of Keefe, Brennan & Brennan, of Quincy, for appellee Leonard Hayden, M.D." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ANNA CLYMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEONARD HAYDEN, Indiv. and as Agent of Blessing Hospital, et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFourth District\nNo. 4 \u2014 95 \u2014 0678\nOpinion filed March 28, 1996.\nRehearing denied May 3, 1996.\nRick A. Gleason, of Rick A. Gleason & Associates, of Chicago, for appellant.\nGena J. Awerkamp, of Schmiedeskamp, Robertson, Neu & Mitchell, of Quincy, for appellee Blessing Hospital.\nJerry L. Brennan, of Keefe, Brennan & Brennan, of Quincy, for appellee Leonard Hayden, M.D." }, "file_name": "0862-01", "first_page_order": 880, "last_page_order": 888 }