2020 IL App (2d) 200601-U No. 2-20-0601 Order filed November 30, 2020 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ BEVERLY GLEN HOMEOWNERS’ ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ASSOCIATION, ) of Du Page County. ) Plaintiff

- Appellant , ) ) v. ) No. 18- MR -1123 ) TERESA JAGIELLO and KATARZYNA ) JAGIELLO, ) ) Defendants-Appell ee s. ) Honorable ) Paul M. Fullerton, (Jerzy Jagiello, D ef endant). ) Judge, Presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court. Justice s Zenoff and Br ennan concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶ 1 Held : The trial court did not err in : (1) granting defendants’ motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement and did not interpret any statutory provisions in arriving at its determination; and (2) finding plaintiff in contempt and imposing a monetary fine

. Affirmed

. ¶ 2 In this interlocutory appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(a) (1) (eff. Nov. 1, 2017) (interlocutory appeal as of right from an injunction), plaintiff, Beverly Glen Homeowners’ Association, had sued defendants, Teresa Jagiello, Katarzyna Jagiello, and Jerzy Jagiello (Teresa2020 IL App (2d) 200601-U

- 2

- and Katarzyna were unit owners of a townhome in the development ) , seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief for claims concerning plaintiff’s alleged rights to common areas at the property. As relevant to th is appeal, d efendants Teresa and Katarzyna counterclaimed, alleging violations of the Common Interest Community Association Act (CICA) ( 765 ILCS 160/1 -1 et seq. (West 2018) ), specifically, that plaintiff allegedly refused to comply with their document

insp ection request. The parties entered into a settlement agreement concerning the CICA counterclaims. However, in response to defendants’ allegations that plaintiff failed to comply with the settlement agreement, the trial court, on April 14, 2020, granted defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement, ordering plaintiff to produce all documents by May 29, 2020. Defendants continued to maintain that plaintiff had not produced the requested documents and moved for a rule to show cause against plaint iff . On June 9, 2020, the trial court issued a rule to show cause and, on July 17, 2020, the trial court found plaintiff in indirect civil contempt of court and allowed it to purge the contempt by complying with its April 14, 2020, order and produc ing all documents on August 17, 2020, which it did not do. ¶ 3 Subsequently, defendants issued subpoenas to Hunzinger & Co., plaintiff’s accountant, and the trial court denied plaintiff’s motions to quash the subpoenas and ordered Hunzinger to produce all requested d ocuments. The court also denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the contempt finding, imposed a $100-per- week fine until the contempt was purged, ordered plaintiff to produce the original documents, and denied plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings. ¶ 4 Plaintiff appeals, argu ing that: (1) the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion to enfo rce the settlement agreement based on its erroneous construction of sections 1

- 30(i)(1)(i), (1)(ii), and (1)(iii) of CICA; (2) the court erred in denying plaintiff’s cross

- motion to enforce the settlement agreement; ( 3 ) the court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion to quash defendants ’ second2020 IL App (2d) 200601-U

- 3

- subpoena to Hunzinger; and ( 4 ) the contempt finding and fine should be reversed and vacated. We affirm. ¶ 5 I. BACKGROUND ¶ 6 A. Controversy ¶ 7 In August 2018 and in a subsequent amended complaint , the Association , a not

- for

- profit corporation, sued defendant s, alleging they were record unit owner s of 6514 Stair Street, Downers Grove, 60516, and member s of plaintiff, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief with respect to disputes over plaintiff’s alle ged rights concerning common areas and limited common areas at the property

. Plaintiff alleged that it, the Village of Downers Grove, and authorized representatives, agents, and contractors have perpetual easement rights of ingress and egress to the

commo n and limited areas of the property, including the basement of defendants ’ unit, where the main shared water lines and water meter are housed , and the front and back yards, for the purpose of routine inspection, examination, maintenance, and repairs. Desp ite reasonable advance notice, defendants refused them access. ¶ 8 In November 2017, plaintiff alleged, defendant s complained of a water

- line leak. The Village received notice and informed defendant s that they should notify plaintiff. Defendant s did not noti fy plaintiff, who later learned of the alleged leak from the V illage. Plaintiff sought access to defendant s’ unit, but defendant s denied it access. Plaintiff further alleged that it informed defendants that they were not authori z ed to unilaterally commence any construction that might affect the main water line or meter. However, between December 2017 and January 2018, defendants commenced such work. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that it an d the Village and their repres entatives and contractors have easement rights to the common areas and limited common areas (which include the common water lines and common water meters) and an2020 IL App (2d) 200601-U

- 4

- injunction prohibiting defendant s from making any changes to the common areas, including the
f ront and back yards of the unit, without prior express written permission from plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleged that an ash tree in defendants’ front yard is located within the common area and is its responsibility. However, defendant s claimed to own th e tree, which, according the plain tif f is infected with ash borer and is a safety hazard. Plaintiff sought to remove the tree. ¶ 9 In March 2019, Teresa and Katarzyna, asserting that they were the legal owners of 6514 Stair Street, filed a counterclaim agains t plaintiff. They alleged that they sought documents from plaintiff pursuant to CICA, but that plaintiff requested documentation of current ownership of the subject unit. Defendants further alleged that, after providing such documentation, plaintiff neve r produced or made available the requested documents for inspection. They referred to another case, wherein the court had ruled against plaintiff for failing to properly respond to a CICA request. In several counts, defendant s asserted claims for CICA vi olation s and breaches of fiduciary duty by plaintiff’s president, treasurer , and secretary (counts I through IV); property damage and constructive fraud against plaintiff for allegedly failing to address flooding in defendants’ unit (count V) ; violations of plaintiff’s declaration as to the removal of trees, where plaintiff allegedly did not replant removed trees, resulting in squirrels seeking shelter in and damaging vehicles (count VI); and violation of the declaration as to unauthorized parking restricti ons, where plaintiff allegedly violated the declaration (and diminished the value of the unit) by restricting the number of parking spaces for each unit and making parking permits non

- transferable, where such right is appurtenant to and passes with title t o each lot (count VII)

. ¶ 10 Teresa and Katarzyna had made their document request on August 24, 2018. They sought: (1) plaintiff’s annual report s from January 1, 2017, to the present (pursuant to section 1

- 30(i)(1)(i) of CICA ); (2) an itemized chronological list of expenditures affecting the common areas, including2020 IL App (2d) 200601-U

- 5

- copies of contracts, leases, or other agreements entered into by the board from January 1, 2017, to the present (pursuant to section 1

- 30(i)(1)(ii)); and (3) minutes of all board meetings from Januar y 1, 2017, to the present (pursuant to section 1- 30(i)(1)(iii)). ¶ 11 B. Settlement Agreement ¶ 12 On December 6, 2019, t he parties entered into a settlement agreement concerning the CICA claims (counts I through IV) in defendants’ counterclaim

. They agreed that defendants would dismiss counts I through IV of their counterclaim with prejudice. Also, plaintiff agreed to: “produce documents identified in the August 24, 2018[,] Letter for all dates between January 1, 2017[,] and December 6, 2019[.]” The agreement a lso specified that the record request and the August 24, 2018, letter were incorporated into the agreement and that the document inspection would take place on December 19, 2019, at 1 p.m. at or near the offices of Kenneth DucDuong ( plaintiff’s attorney). The transcript of the hearing on the agreement was incorporated into the settlement agreement. ¶ 13 On December 19, 2019, plaintiff produced several documents (a ledge r , invoices, contracts, leases, annual reports, meeting minutes, and other agreements), and defendant Teresa and counsel inspected the records for, according to plaintiff, 21⁄2 hours. ¶ 14 On January 6, 2020, defendants moved to enforce the December 2019 settlement agreement, arguing that the agreed

- to inspection location had been changed, pl aintiff refused to turn over documents for inspection unless defendants refrained from copying or photographing the documents, and that not all of the agreed-to documents had been produced for inspection. ¶ 15 On February 20, 2020, plaintiff filed a cross

- motio n to enforce the settlement agreement , seeking an order that defendants pay two charges for their records request : (1) a $75 fee for the request , which was specified in the record

- request form defendants executed; and (2) $150 for2020 IL App (2d) 200601-U

- 6

- expenses plaintiff allege d it incurred to Hunzinger related to the request and which it argued were statutorily allowed ( (765 ILCS 160/1

- 30(i)(3) (West 2018) (“ A reasonable fee may be charged by the board for the cost of retrieving and copying records properly requested. ”)) and co ntractually agreed -to (the request form noted: “Copying/Other Charges: TBD”). ¶ 16 On April 8, 2020, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on counts I through I II of defendants’ counterclaim. It raised for the first time that plaintiff is governed by the Genera l Not For Profit Corporation Act of 1986 (Non

- profit Act) ( 805 ILCS 105/101.01 et seq. (West 2018)),
not CICA. Plaintiff also argued that defendants failed to complete a nd return a record

- request form, did not have a proper purpose, and already possessed some of the requested documents. ¶ 17 On April 14, 2020, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement, ordering plaintiff to produce all documents identified in the August 24, 2018, letter within seven days of the next status d ate ( i.e. , by May 2 9 , 2020). It also specified that the documents contain no redactions except for personal information and that defendants have the ability to identify which documents they sought to have copied, with copies provided to them upon their pa yment of reasonabl e copying costs. The court also noted that it would entertain a fee petition from defendants, supported by affidavit, for reasonable costs and fees incurred and related to bringing their motion. In th e same order, the court lifted a stay on discovery and noted the “extreme animosity” between the parties and the “extensive litigation” that “makes absolutely no economic sense,” where the “dislike” between the attorneys was such that “resolution appears
im possible.” ¶ 18 On June 1, 2020, defendants moved for a rule to show cause against plaintiff , arguing that plaintiff had failed to produce the agreed -to documents for inspection. On June 9, 2020, the trial court issued a rule to show cause and gave plaintiff 14 days to respond why it should not be held2020 IL App (2d) 200601-U

- 7

- in contempt of court for failing to comply with the court’s December 6, 2019, and April 14, 2020, orders. On June 12, 2020, plaintiff , in turn, mo ved for entry of a friendly indirect civil contempt against defendants for purposes of facilitating appellate review of the trial court ’ s April 14, 2020, order (an d a nominal fine to be held in abeyance pending appeal under Rule 304(b)(5)). On July 17, 20 20 , the trial court found plaintiff in indirect civil contempt of court and allowed it to purge the contempt by complying with paragraph two of the court’s April 14, 2020, order and produc e all documents on August 17, 202 0

. The court denied plaintiff’s mo tion for a finding of friendly indirect civil contempt and its cross

- motion to enforce the settlement agreement

. It also denied plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the portion of its April 14 order that granted defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement. Finally, the trial court denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file under seal or to conduct a hearing to examine documents. ¶ 19 On July 27, 2020, defendants issued a subpoena for documents to Hunzinger. The subpoena was quashed on August 12, 2020. ¶ 20 On July 3 0, 2020, plaintiff moved to vacate and stay the contempt finding (and filed records of annual reports, meeting minutes, and expenses) and, on September 1, 2020, moved to stay the proceedings. At an August 14, 2020 hearing, DucDuong represented to the cour t that no documents would be produced by the specified deadline. ¶ 21 On August 14, 2020, plaintiff filed its (first) notice of interlocutory appeal with this court. ¶ 22 On August 17, 2020, plaintiff subpoenaed Hunzinger a second time, seeking financial records rel ated to the litigation

. ¶ 23 On August 31, 2020, the trial court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the contempt finding and stay the proceedings , noting that a notice of appeal had been filed on August 14.2020 IL App (2d) 200601-U

- 8

- ¶ 24 Plaintiff , on September 1, 2020, moved to quash a subpoena issued to Hunzinger, arguing that it was not on a required form, did not contain part of a warning, was not served by a sheriff, and the requested documents were not relevant to the facts at issue. Pla intiff also moved to stay the proceedings, arguing that, given the appeal, it was prudent to maintain the status quo. In this court, it moved to voluntarily dismiss its appeal. On September 4 , 2020, this court dismissed the appeal. On September 22, 2020, plaintiff moved to dismiss defendants’ motion for leave to file a proposed shareholder- derivative suit. ¶ 25 On October 15, 2020, the trial court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings; denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the contempt finding (and further ordered that plaintiff was fined $100 per week until the contempt is purged ; the court noted that it had ordered plaintiff to produce the original documents); denied plaintiff’s motion to quash the second subpoena to Hunzinger (and ordered Hunzinger to produce all requested documents within 14 days); denied defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended counterclaim; and denied defendants’ motion for leave to file a proposed derivative suit against plaintiff’s directors. ¶ 26 On October 16, 2020, plaintiff filed its (second) notice of interlocutory appeal to this court. ¶ 27 II. ANALYSIS ¶ 28 Initially, we note that plaintiff’s briefs in this appeal are disorganized and , at times , somewhat incomprehensible. See Twardowski v. Holiday Hospital Franchising, Inc. , 321 Ill. A pp. 3d 509, 511, (2001) ( t his court is “entitled to have briefs submitted that present an organized and cohesive legal argument in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules.”)

. Our review is further hampered by both parties ’ inadequate statements of fact, w hich omit relevant evidence, furnish erroneous cites to the record, and exaggerate or even misrepresent the facts in evidence. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(6) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) ( ap pellate briefs shall include “Statement of Facts, which2020 IL App (2d) 200601-U

- 9

- shall contain the fa cts necessary to an understanding of the case, stated accurately and fairly without argument or comment, and with appropriate reference to the pages of the record on appeal.”) However, while the insufficiency of the parties ’ briefs hinders our review, we are able to ascertain the merits of the case from the record on appeal and we , therefore , choose to reach them. See Twardowski , 321 Ill. App. 3d at 511. ¶ 29 Plaintiff argues that : (1) the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement based on its erroneous construction of section s 1- 30(i)(1)(i) , (1)(ii), and (1)(iii) of CICA 1 ; (2) the court erred in denying plaintiff’s cross

- motion to enforce the settlement agreement ; ( 3 ) the court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion to quash defendant’s subpoena to Hunzinger; and (4) the contempt finding and fine should be reversed and vacated.

1 Section 1

- 30(i)(1)(i) of CICA provides that a board must maintain certain records and make them available for examination and copying by any member or unit owner, including:

“ Copies of the recorded declaration, other community instruments, other duly reco rded covenants and bylaws and any amendments, articles of incorporation, articles of organization, annual reports, and any rules and regulations adopted by the board[.]” 765 ILCS 160/1

- 30(i)(1)(i) (West 2018). A board is also required to maintain detailed records of receipts and expenditures (see 765 ILCS
160/1- 30(i)(1)(ii) (West 2018) (“ Detailed and accurate records in chronological order of the receipts and expenditures affecting the common areas, specifying and itemizing the maintenance and repair expenses of the common areas and any other expenses incurred, and copies of all contracts, leases, or other agreements entered into by the board shall be maintained. ”)) and meeting minutes (s ee 765 ILCS 160/1

- 30(i)(1)(iii) (West 2018) (“The minutes of a ll meetings of the board which shall be maintained for not less than 7 years.” )).2020 IL App (2d) 200601-U

- 10

- ¶ 30 A. Jurisdiction ¶ 31 Before reaching the merits , we address our jurisdiction over aspects of this appeal. This case involves, in part, the appeal from the denial of plaintiff’s motion to stay the trial court proceedings (as it related to, among others, the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to enforce the settlem ent agreement and granting defendant’s rule to show cause) . Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(1) provides that an appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order “granting, modifying, refusing, dissolving, or refusing to dissolve or modify an injunction.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 307(a)(1) (eff. Feb. 26, 2010). A stay is considered injunctive in nature. Salsitz v. Kreiss , 198 Ill. 2d 1, 11 (2001). Thus, Rule 307 (a) permits the interlocutory appeal of a stay of trial court proceedings. Cholipski v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc. , 2014 IL App (1st) 132842, ¶ 33. ¶ 32 The trial court’s July 17, 2020, contempt finding and October 15, 2020, imposition of a $100-per- week penalty arose from the court’s granting, on April 14, 2020, of defendants’ motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction to consider the issues related to these rulings. See In re Marriage of Gutman , 232 Ill. 2d 145, 153 (2008) (c ontempt judgments that impose a penalty are final, appealable orders ); see also Ill. S. Ct. R. 304(b)( 5) (eff. Mar. 8,
2016 , 2006) (providing that a Rule 304(a) finding is not required for an appeal from “[a] n order finding a person or entity in contempt of court which imposes a monetary or other penalty.”). ¶ 33 The parties disagree whether we have jurisdict ion over the issues concerning the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to quash the Hunzinger subpoena and the denial of pla intiff’s

cross -mot ion to enforce the settlement agreement. Defendants argue that the two issues are not properly before this court because: (1) plaintiffs did not obtain an Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016) finding; and (2) they are not appealable under Rule 307(a)(1), because it applies only to injunctive orders. Plaintiff responds that this court has jur isdiction pursuant to2020 IL App (2d) 200601-U

- 11

- Rule 307(a)(1) and, “in the interest of judicial economy,” should review the trial court’s ruling on the cross- motion and “related orders,” because they arose from the same settlement agreement. ¶ 34 We conclude that we do not have jurisdi ction to consider the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to quash the Hunzinger subpoena. A discovery order is not a final order and is not ordinarily appealable. Norskog v. Pfiel , 197 Ill. 2d 60, 69 (2001). However, a party challenging a discov ery order may test the propriety of the order through contempt proceedings. Id. “When [a party] appeals contempt sanctions imposed for violating, or threatening to violate, a pretrial discovery order, the disc ov ery order is subject to review.” Id

. Here , plaintiff did not pursue this avenue to challenge the court’s order. ¶ 35 Plaintiff argues that the court’s ruling had injunctive effect and , thus, is reviewable under Rule 307(a)(1). “[P] urely ministerial or administrative discovery orders which regulate only procedural details of the litigation do not come within the realm of injunctive relief ” under Rule 307(a)(1). Custer v. Cerro Flow Products, Inc. , 2019 IL App (5th) 190285, ¶ 23. However, where

“ the trial court ’ s order denying a stay of the proceedings [is] not purely ministerial and effectively enjoin [s] [a party] from asserting its right to claim the attorney

- client privilege and from protecting the legal privileges of third parties ,” t he order is reviewable under Rule 307(a)(1). Id. We disagree that the court’s actions regarding the Hunzinger subpoena had injunctive effect. Plaintiff maintained below that the documents defendants sought had already been produced. The subpoena to pla intiff’s accountant did not enjoin plaintiff from asserting any claims or substantive rights in the litigation. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the subpoena issue. ¶ 36 Turning to plaintiff’s cross

- motion to enforce the settlement agreement, we also conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the court’s denial of this motion. In th e motion, plaintiff sought an order that defendants pay two charges for their records request: (1) a $75 fee for the request,2020 IL App (2d) 200601-U

- 12

- which was specified in the record

- request form defendants executed; and (2) $150 for expenses plaintiff alleged it incurred to Hunzinger related to the request and which it argued were statutorily allowed (765 ILCS 160/ 1- 30(i)(3) (West 2018) (“ A reasonable fee may be charged by the board for the cost of retrieving and copying records properly requested. ”) ) and contractually agreed

- to (the request form noted: “Copying/Other Charges: TBD”). The trial court denied the moti on on July 17, 2020. The order is interlocutory, plaintiff did not obtain a Rule 304(a) finding from the ruling, and it cites no authority for the proposition that we have jurisdiction to consider this aspect of the appeal. Plaintiff merely asserts that, “in the interest of judicial economy,” we review this ruling. In the absence of relevant authority, we decline its request. ¶ 37 B. CICA arguments ¶ 38 Turning to the merits, p laintiff’s first two arguments concern CICA. It contends that the trial court, in its April 14, 2020, order granting defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement, erroneously expanded the scope of the requirements under section s 1-30 (i)(1) when it determined that production of a ledger was inadequate and instead ordered plaintiff to produce documents of its receipts and expenditures. The expansive interpretation, plaintiff argues, is untenable , because it requires it to produce every document it possesses, and absurd , because it is overly costly. ¶ 39 Plaintiff’s second CICA argument i s that the trial court erred in ordering plaintiff to produce original “copies of contracts, leases, or other agreements .” It also asserts that the court made no factual findings, held no evidentiary hearing, and received no evidence before granting the motion. The court also, according the plaintiff, misunderstood the statute , and defendants repudiated the settlement. Finally, plaintiff argues that the court’s order that documents contain2020 IL App (2d) 200601-U

- 13

- no redactions except for certain personal information should be reversed , because it did produce originals and CICA does not require originals. ¶ 40 Defendants respond that : (1) plaintiff neve r produced any original annual reports or meeting minutes; (2) statutory interpretation is not at issue; rather, plaintiff’s breach of the settlement agreement is at issue; (3) nevertheless, as to the CICA issue, the statute requires plaintiff to maintain and produce original financial documents and meeting minutes, including itemized maintenance and repair expenses, not summaries or ledgers, which plaintiff provided; and (4) as to the maintenance-and- repair

- expenses CICA provision, plaintiff did not produc e all required documents, including originals , and redactions can be made on originals that are in fact computer printouts. Defendants contend that plaintiff produced no contracts, leases , or other agreements and that no original or non

- redacted invoices were produced. They also contend that half of the 24 produced invoices were redacted or otherwise altered. Finally, defendants point to portions of the transcript where plaintiff’s insurer’s appointed counsel, Catherine Weiler, expressed frustration with plaintiff’s counsel’s lack of cooperation and failure to produce all documents. ¶ 41 We reject plaintiff’s assertion that the trial court erred in construing the statute. The issue on appeal concerns the settlement agreement. Nowhere in the court’s orders di d the court interpret
CICA . Indeed, in its April 8, 2020, summary

- judgment motion and in portions of its briefs in this appeal , plaintiff maintains that it was governed by the Non

- profit Act , not CICA, yet proceeded throughout this contentious litigation to raise CICA

- based arguments. ¶ 42 Plaintiff attempts to use the statute to challenge the propriety of the trial court’s April 14, 2020, order granting defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement, which required plaintiff to produce all documents in its possession. In that order, the court dismissed defendants’ counterclaims (counts I through IV), with prejudice, and ordered that plaintiff “SHALL produce2020 IL App (2d) 200601-U

- 14

- ALL documents identified in the August 24, 2018[,] letter for all dates between January 1, 2017[ ,] and December 6, 2019.” It further specified that the documents “shall contain no redactions except for personal identification information, such as social security numbers, full bank account numbers, personal phone numbers, etc.” It repeated, “The pro duction shall be for inspection of ALL original documents they desire to have copied and said copies shall be provided to the Defendants upon Defendants [’] payment of reasonably copying costs.” ¶ 43 The settlement agreement specified that plaintiff “ h as agree d to produce documents identified in the August 24, 2018[,] Letter for all dates between January 1, 2017[,] and December 6, 2019[.]” That letter requested: (1) annual reports beginning January 1, 2017 (per section 1

- 30(i)(1)(i)); (2) chronological produci ng of “expenditures affecting the common areas, specifying and itemizing the maintenance and repair expenses of the common areas and any other expenses incurred, and copies of all contracts, leases, or other agreements entered into by the board from
Januar y 1, 2017[,] to [the] present” (emphasis added) ; and (3) minutes of all board meetings from January 1, 2017, to the present. Again, the parties agreed to this language. The trial court’s April 14, 2020, order granting enforcement of the agreement and ord ering that plaintiff produce “ALL original documents” listed in the August 24, 2018, letter (which was incorporated into the settlement agreement) mirrors the settlement agreement’s language. The trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion to e nforce the settlement agreement. Plaintiff complains that CICA does not require that the underlying documents be produced and that a ledger it allegedly produced satisfied the statute. Again, this argument fails because the issue on appeal concerns the s ettlement agreement, not CICA, which the trial court did not interpret. ¶ 44 Leading up to its ruling on defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement, the trial court presided over several hearings where the parties disputed whether plaintiff met its2020 IL App (2d) 200601-U

- 15

- obligations under the settlement agreement. In this appeal, plaintiff has failed to convince us that the trial court’s ruling was erroneous. As noted, there was evidence before the court that plaintiff did not produce the required documents. We also not e that plaintiff concedes that some of the documents it did produce consisted of checks placed on top of and partially blocking the related statement. However, it argues that this does not make these documents any less original or complete . We disagree. Plaintiff also concedes that it did not produce the corporate reports (due to “[u]nkown computer efile errors”; it do es not explain why it did not attempt again to retrieve the information) and contends that they are a matter of public record and that defendants can obtain them on their own from the Secretary of State’s website. This argument is also unavailing because the parties’ settlement agreement does not place the burden on defendants to obtain public records. ¶ 45 C. Contempt ¶ 46 Plaintiff’s final argument is that, assuming we agree that the trial court ’ s rulings were

erroneous, we reverse and vacate the trial court’s contempt order and monetary fine

. Given that we have rejected its argument that the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement, we decline its request. ¶ 47 III. CONCLUSION ¶ 48 For the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is affirmed

. ¶ 49 Affirmed.