requests were changed among the parties in arriving tours were sent to the rehabilitation center asking us to identify a number of people for example people who held different positions in the rehabilitation center from two thousand and three up to the present two thousand and three would be proceeding the injury or the occurrence by two years and up to the present administration of the rehabilitation center the medical director the director of nursing those types of people need to be identified they also asked us to identify anyone who files of everybody who had been identified so far whether they were in the administrator at the time of the occurrence or even after the occurrence anyone who had come into contact with your ex actually the request for production of the personnel files was even broader than the iraq tours you listed the thirty four they wanted the thirty four individuals files as well as anyone who was involved in care and i think i'm using those those words correctly involved anywhere in care directed we raise four objections to it which i think are really pertinent here today the first is that the request was not limited in time to an appropriate time of involvement the second was that the request was not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and was within the in the words of the appellate court first district in the fabiano case efficient engine addition after raising those objections there was a motion to compel the trial court decided that motion against us on this particular issue in favor of both parties on various issues but this is the one issue that arose out of that motion to compel just with the with regard to the personnel files the court order just within twenty eight days to produce those thirty four personnel files within a twenty eight days we filed something called a we called a notice of compliance with the order stating what matters we were producing and drawing the court's attention discords attention of the as it turns out it is to the fact that we were still of jack into the production of personnel files i would pla record and made it know there is a motion for a sanctions and a motion to reconsider those things or file eventually the trial court stood on its initial ruling and held my client contempt and that's why we are here today the issue really is twofold is this a bad faith appeal in a bad faith contempt and secondly was it proper to order these personnel files with that in mind  me just start by saying personnel file i think is more accurately described not so much as a document but as a location there's nothing in any statute which says all certain things or certain items have to be in a personnel file and employers from employer to employer vary on what they put in those personal files it's not something like requesting a lease agreement or a proof of purchase or an employment contract those are identifiable documents and employment file we've called it the manila confines if you will it is it's an area or a space where a number of different documents are place that may relate to the employment of an individual it could have a job application it could have a tuberculosis test result it could have my child's tuberculosis test result because i wanted to show the employer why i was for a week it could have been you know letters of reference evaluation performances it could have simply notes that were exchanged for whatever various reasons there's nothing specific necessarily to an employment file that you will find from one employer to another through out through on point it's like asking taken to an extreme but it's like asking for all documents within the confines of the file all documents that will be found in a room there's nothing specific when we ask about an employment that we're seeking and that's why i think the fabiano case called a request for an employment filed to be a fishing expedition their mind be something of interest that might be something relevant there probably will be many documents or a number of documents that will be relevant especially to a material issue in this case because this case involves an injury in a rehabilitation center to a woman's backside the fact that an employee who saw this woman at some point in jerry filled out a job application is  relevant it isn't material is probably even the better question is a reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible at the first in the first  objection we made of course was their request was not limited properly in scope to the relevant period of time thirty four of these individuals whose files we are supposed to produce were not even employed at this specifically who was the nursing home and going to straighter july two thousand and five to the present time we then listed four administrators with the dates of employment the first one was employed at the facility at the time of  the others were medical records technician or wound care specialist a medical director physician and a wound care physician which i believe is the same the same individual so there are thirty four individuals who have been named b name in the request to produce of those thirty four ten of them were never employed there in july two thousand and five their employment all began afterwards and yet have been ordered to produce  just it's not proper to send a discovery request to a rehabilitation center a nursing home saying please give us all of your files all of the files certainly is much too broad of a request if you don't have a you have a problem of the twenty four yes with the problem with the other twenty four ok the problem with the other twenty four can i give you an example let's say if if i had been here a few years ago and i tripped and fell on your stairs all right i sue the state of illinois for my injury that its cost that resulted and i asked who was employed public court at that time and the attorney general with defending the case in the court of claims says well we had so many appellate justices we had a bailiff we had a clerk and i say i'd like all of those files a personnel file if one is interested for example in a criminal background check we can we can be asked to produce a criminal background check and we will have to do so an employee file though as the case  what if this case was an employment case all right where i say we have a contract with of employment i could be terminated for cause and causes the thank you and cause is defined as three write ups in my personnel file the personnel file is an issue that isn't well let me ask let me out it's not just different yes are there is are it deserve anything these twenty four files that you don't get wow good exception of any medical records that might be a you know i did it some time and maybe i'm wrong on this but it seems to me that that the approach is the opposite of what normally approaches discovery discovery is generally very broad and if anything relevant or things that could lead to something that's a problem typically if somebody has a problem with the discovery requests they make a specific objection to with that request yes but what you're doing is taking the one case and just objecting period saying intil they tailor the request a little better we're not going to provide you anything well there are some things that you can't possibly object to that would be that there would be on that even you would say would be relevant and you haven't submitted those to the other side your honor i respectfully disagree and i cannot concede that point for you when you say that what is usually done is this procedure fabiano versus city of painless hills i strongly encourage a really good look at that case because that then is just the opposite of what you're saying there the request was for the parties personnel file a partner and these individuals are not parties and they're not even designated as trial witnesses yet at parties private personnel file which the illinois general assembly has said is a private matter and if you disclose that under certain circumstances you have to give that employee notice this is not just a piece of paper that we have lying on a desk fabiano said when you ask for that question over the years and generally people are trying to cooperate and give each other the stuff that is not going to be a problem and it's not typically don't go to the wire on everything and we that there are some things that can't be a problem and you that's what i'm having a hard time understanding that part of in the motion to compel there are probably i don't know ten twenty different things we didn't come to terms on all but this one as we can these fi demand we don't know what's in these files are said i've never looked at them even if i wish the trial or my time is up if there's something else i can address for you to do so otherwise i thank you for your careful consideration of the this court to use and employ the wrong standard of review for judge diagnosis order and they urge you to adopt a dyno standard of review discovery waters or just are reviewed using the manifest abuse of discretion north card involved the illinois mental health and developmental disabilities confidentiality act by no invite involve the illinois aides confidential confidentially confidentiality act there is relevant and also would not lead to something that would be relevant your honor we offered a protective order we said first of all we don't want him to burke you lose this records we don't want any medical information at all take that out of the personnel file actually with a man so we exclude all medical information we exclude anything that has to do with the person's medical information plus we agreed not to disseminate any of the information outside of the litigation and we were we agreed to return all of the files at the conclusion of the litigation and for mr miller to say that he doesn't know what's in word but whoa what were their what do you think were in the files i know what's in the files you know it's and i know it's in the files because i assume that the nursing home has complied with the illinois ministry of code which categorizes the things that must be in the employees files so one should write the job applications disciplinary measures involving patient care prior employment history educational background and criminal background this is seventy seven building illinois ministry of code section three hundred point six five zero three hundred all those out of arms that you just read where they all be relevant and or lead to something absolutely absolutely judge because to provide the names of or provide baby i provide the names of people who provided here to martinson while she was in the nursing home people who witnessed the care and treatment providing provided to martinson or who reported acted upon any incident or injury involving murder vincent or who were administrators at new beginnings now justice lytton used the phrase red hearing about these ten files for people who weren't employed there mr miller never raised that in the trial court never raised that as to as an objection in the trial court are you asking for those files absolutely judge what possible relevance or what would lead to something robust those it sounds like and i'm hearing for the first time that some of these ten words were administrators in there were subsequently remedial measures that were in instituted at the facility at the nursing home after martinson's injury because of her injuries and if the nursing home later makes an argument that it wasn't feasible to do anything more from there was never an objection under oath that there were ten individuals of the thirty four that they provide that they listed in response to that in arriving to him that these people didn't even work there so well how language in the illinois history of code requires the maintenance of personnel files for a period of five years after an accident or injury so that the department can review them we'd like to review them and that's why we we patterned our request we pattern our language after the what's found in the administrative hold they use the phrase personnel files and they list broad categories of things that must be maintained in the personnel file we  says the personnel files must be maintained and then later on they say and and by the way these are the things that must be maintained in the personnel files in toronto you and so we asked for the personnel files rather than that every and is heard for the first time here we're hearing for the first time here that there are ten people who who didn't work there just honest never heard that there's never been an affidavit to that effect there's never been the answer under oath to that a ten twelve month period and three warrigal arguments the nursing home never offered a scintilla of evidence found in those personnel files at all perhaps if they had made a conciliatory gesture like that mr moggs we own we will give you the employment application will give you their educational background will give you their disciplinary record will give you their criminal background check will give you their  performance evaluations perhaps i would have said in georgetown this would have said that sounds like a reasonable compromise and we wouldn't be here today but instead the nursing home decided sounds like you would have one time or for a long time you were a trial judge you can't possibly conduct an in camera review of everything that the every every discovery request and that's what mr miller is asking for  behalf of the nursing home he's following judge dimas for not conducting in camera review in our brief first of all the this issue is is weighted because it's raised for the first time comply with the mandates of supreme court rule to a one on the other question with regard to you know they identified certain number of people no as you heard in these arguments the other side is suggesting that with regard for example to the administr they applied the manifest abuse of discretion standard in affirming the trial court and they said that the party seeking the records offered no argument as to why they might be relevant those of the two applying and second of all the party seeking the police officer's records may be made no argument as to why they might be relevant or lead to the discovery of relevant evidence if i could spend my last moment on the notice of compliance where he simply really argued the case he didn't ask the judge to reconsider the decision he didn't ask to be held in friendly contempt he he has to this day he has never asked to be held  may please chorus there's this isn't some suggestion that we somehow waived that there were ten employees that are not at issue whatsoever and that employee files by their very nature are for some reason thought that there were some that if you started around two thousand and three and were gone for two thousand and five but really whether they were hired before or after they were never employed at the time this woman was at facilities so there is no possible way tha have responded to that and i think that we're being faulted on the one hand for objecting to things and then we're being faulted for kind of in the spirit of cooperation all we're doing is putting forth some names and we put the dates of them form right into the answer to iraq and torie so you're reading the answer in the see while this person was not employed at the relevant time it if i'm going to propound a request to produce based on these perhaps i should leave that off so it was that we included that it was just in the spirit of cooperation and just stating their main theme i don't think is saying that we believe that they are relevant to this case absolutely and that everything in their file no information well i think as contentious as this is been from the on the record of this case i just don't think that that would have landed us anywhere else as counsel is stated they want all of the files rect but because those certain items may be contained in a file or you know a regulation set is that it will be in the file it's just not a reason to produce the entire did bring up the possibility that we were going to see contempt as soon as the trial judge ruled against us it's in the transcripts it's clear resided in our proof and there were many occasions where counsel said well we're not agreeing with this order and we're planning to on fortunately the procedure in illinois is to have to draw that contempt it's true that it was taken as a response to a motion for sanctions but there's no there's no procedure that i'm aware of that says exactly how the contempt has to be drawn