2015 IL App (1st) 142972

No. 1-14-2972

Opinion filed September 11, 2015 

 FIFTH DIVISION

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT 

MELINDA RUCH, as the Administrator ) 

for the Estate of Kenneth L. Kazort, ) 

Deceased, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) 

 ) 

JOHN PADGETT and ADVANCED ) 

DISPOSAL SERVICES SOLID WASTE ) 

MIDWEST, L.L.C., d/b/a Advanced ) 

Disposal, ) 

 ) 

Defendants-Appellees. )

Appeal from the Circuit Court

of Cook County.

No. 13 L 014527

The Honorable

Eileen Mary Brewer, 

Judge, presiding.

 

JUSTICE GORDON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. 

Justices McBride and Palmer concurred in the judgment and opinion. 

 OPINION
No. 14-2972

2 

¶ 1 Plaintiff Melinda Ruch brought this lawsuit as the administrator for the 

estate of Kenneth L. Kazort. Ruch alleged that Kazort died as the result of a 

motor vehicle collision on October 24, 2013, between his vehicle and a garbage 

truck driven by defendant John Padgett, who was employed by defendant 

Advanced Disposal Services Solid Waste Midwest, L.L.C. (Advanced 

Disposal). 

¶ 2 Defendants then moved the trial court, pursuant to the doctrine of forum 

non conveniens, to transfer the case from Cook County, which is not plaintiff's 

home forum, to Boone County, where the motor vehicle accident occurred. The 

trial court granted defendants' motion but permitted plaintiff to choose whether 

the case would be transferred to Boone County or Winnebago County, where a 

number of the witnesses live and where plaintiff both lives and works.

¶ 3 On this interlocutory appeal, plaintiff Ruch appeals the trial court's grant 

of defendants' forum non conveniens motion, and defendants ask that we affirm. 

For the following reasons, we cannot find that the trial court abused its 

discretion and thus must affirm.
No. 14-2972

3 

¶ 4 BACKGROUND

¶ 5 I. Complaint

¶ 6 Plaintiff filed this action in Cook County on December 27, 2013, alleging 

negligence by both John Padgett, the driver of the garbage truck, and Advanced 

Disposal, his employer. 

¶ 7 Plaintiff alleges that on October 24, 2013, at 11 a.m. Kenneth Kazort was 

traveling south on Russelville Road in Belvidere, Illinois. The parties agree 

that this location is in Boone County. 

¶ 8 Plaintiff further alleges that, at this time, defendant Padgett was 

employed as a garbage truck operator by Advanced Disposal, and was 

operating, by himself, a large Mack, front-lift garbage truck. The truck was 

designed for front-fork loading and unloading of large trash receptacles. In 

order to drive away from a residence that he had serviced, Padgett reversed the 

Advanced Disposal garbage truck in a private driveway and headed in an 

easterly direction onto Russelville Road. 

¶ 9 Plaintiff alleges that, without warning, the garbage truck crossed into 

Kazort's lane of travel as Kazort was heading south on Russelville Road. The 

back end of the garbage truck was then in the path of Kazort's vehicle. 

Numerous large trees, a recreational vehicle (RV), vegetation and other foliage 

located near the scene of the crash obscured Kazort's view of the driveway and 
No. 14-2972

4 

defendant Padgett's view of oncoming traffic. As a result of the ensuing 

collision, Kazort suffered severe injuries and died. 

¶ 10 Defendant John Padgett declined to answer plaintiff's complaint based on 

the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. VX.

¶ 11 Defendant Advanced Disposal admitted in its answer that Padgett is a 

resident of Winnebago County, that Padgett was employed by it as a garbage 

truck operator at the time of the accident and that he was acting in the scope of 

his employment. Defendant admitted upon information and belief that Kazort 

died as a result of the collision between the two vehicles.

¶ 12 II. Forum Non Conveniens Motion 

¶ 13 A. Defendant's Motion

¶ 14 On May 20, 2014, defendants Advanced Disposal and Padgett moved the 

trial court to transfer the action from Cook County to Boone County. 

¶ 15 In its motion, defendants stated that the decedent had lived in Boone 

County and that defendant Padgett lives in Winnebago County and was working 

for Advanced Disposal in Boone County on the day of the accident. In 

addition, representatives of the Boone County sheriff's department and coroner's 

office investigated the accident. The decedent's son and only beneficiary 

resides in Winnebago County with his mother, who is the administrator of 

decedent's estate. Plaintiff's lead counsel is a Missouri law firm with an office in 
No. 14-2972

5 

Chicago, and she also retained a local law firm in Sycamore, Illinois, which is 

in De Kalb County, a county adjacent to Boone County. Defendant included a 

table based on the 2012 statistics from the annual report of the Illinois courts, 

which showed that over 21,000 cases were filed in the law division of Cook 

County seeking over $50,000, while just 44 such cases were filed in Boone 

County.1

 Plaintiff does not dispute these facts.

¶ 16 In an interrogatory response, defendants also listed, as a potential Boone 

County witness, the customer whom defendant Padgett serviced prior to the 

accident, and who could be called to testify about the upkeep and maintenance 

of the property. Defendants' interrogatory response also stated that the 

"[b]usiness records for Boone County customers are kept in the Davis Junction, 

Illinois ADS facility," which is in Ogle County.

¶ 17 B. Plaintiff's Response

¶ 18 In plaintiff's response to defendant's motion, plaintiff stated that her 

damages expert, Dr. Stan Smith, is from Cook County and her reconstruction 

expert, Dr. Mariusz Ziejewsk, is from Fargo, North Dakota. She also stated that 

 1 As we mention infra ¶ 21, plaintiff argued in her response to the trial court 

that the time lapse between filing and verdict is more significant than the number 

of cases filed, and that, in 2012, the time lapse for law jury verdicts over $50,000 

averaged 36.1 months in Cook County and 56 months in Boone County. However, 

as plaintiff later acknowledged in her brief to this court, this same time lapse in 

2013 was still 36 months for Cook County but had dropped to only 22 months for 

Boone County. 
No. 14-2972

6 

decedent's vehicle was stored in McHenry County, while the subject truck was 

stored in Ogle County. While arguing that the landowner could alter the 

accident site by trimming foliage or cutting down trees, plaintiff did not allege 

that had actually happened. 

¶ 19 Plaintiff attached an exhibit which she entitled "Table of Witnesses and 

Exhibits," which listed the likely witnesses and exhibits and where they were 

"locat[ed]." Except for plaintiff Melinda Ruch, the table lists the witness' 

"location" rather than his or her residence or workplace. According to 

plaintiff's list, there is not a single witness or piece of evidence located in Cook 

County, except for plaintiff's economic expert, Stan Smith. Plaintiff's list of 

likely witnesses and exhibits includes "police, paramedics" from Boone and 

Winnebago Counties, and the Boone County coroner. Since neither side has 

identified a witness to the accident,2

 plaintiff listed "scene witnesses' 

residences" as "unknown." 

¶ 20 Plaintiff also submitted affidavits, which were almost identical, from 

nine3 witnesses who stated that they would be willing to provide a videotaped 

 2 Plaintiff's brief to this court states that "there are no eyewitnesses to the 

crash."

3 Plaintiff's response stated that it attached affidavits from 10 witnesses, but 

there are only 9 affidavits attached. The tenth affidavit appears by itself, at the end 

of the appellate record. Similar to the other nine, the tenth affidavit states that the 
No. 14-2972

7 

deposition in Boone or adjacent McHenry and Winnebago Counties, and would 

be willing to appear at a trial in Cook County "if the need arose" and that 

appearing at a trial in Cook County "would not pose an undue hardship or 

inconvenience to myself or my family." The witnesses stated that their 

affidavits were based on the "understand[ing] that [he or she] will be 

reimbursed to the fullest extent permitted by law for traveling to attend a trial in 

Cook County." The affidavits did not state the source of the affiants' source of

knowledge about the underlying facts or whether Boone County would be more 

convenient. 

¶ 21 Plaintiff also attached statistics from the annual report of the 

Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts which showed that, in 2012, for law 

jury verdicts over $50,000, Cook County averaged 36.1 months between the 

date of filing and the date of verdict, while in Boone County the time lapse 

between filing and the date of verdict was 56 months.

¶ 22 On July 16, 2014, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion to attach the 

affidavit of Illinois State Trooper Marsha Banfe to plaintiff's response to 

defendant's motion. Plaintiff's motion stated that Banfe was "involved in the 

downloading of information from the decedent's car." Banfe's affidavit was 

worded similarly to the other witness affidavits submitted by plaintiff and it 

 

affiant is willing to appear for a videotaped deposition in Du Page County and that 

it would not be an "undue" hardship for her to testify at a trial in Cook County. 
No. 14-2972

8 

stated that Banfe would appear for deposition in Du Page County and that a trial 

in Cook County "would not pose an undue hardship or inconvenience to myself 

or to my family." 

¶ 23 C. Trial Court's Ruling

¶ 24 On September 2, 2014, at the hearing on the motion, defendants stated, 

with respect to the affidavits submitted by plaintiff, "we don't know what it is 

they're going to talk about," and plaintiff, who was given an opportunity to 

respond, did not respond to that issue. 

¶ 25 The trial court gave its ruling orally from the bench, stating:

"I am granting defendant's motion to dismiss in this case. The case 

should be transferred to Boone County where the accident occurred and 

the majority of witnesses reside or to Winnebago where the beneficiary 

resides and also the defendant Padgett.

Plaintiff's reliance of [sic] Defendant Advanced Disposal is only 

relevant to venue. Yes, the Cook County court can assert jurisdiction. 

However, this case is primarily a wrongful death case for a car accident 

that happened in Boone County.

The alleged negligence and injury occurred in Boone. There is no 

reasonable connection between the accident and Cook County. 
No. 14-2972

9 

Looking at the totality of circumstances, the situation strongly merits 

transfer. Here, a foreign plaintiff filed in Cook, and the connection is 

always the accident [sic], are in different jurisdictions, thus the plaintiff's 

choice deserves little weight.

And the Court should grant a forum non conveniens motion where the 

facts indicate that the plaintiff is engaged in forum shopping. 

Further, the Court rejects plaintiff's attempt to place witnesses in Cook 

based on an expert witness. If the Court were to consider an expert 

witness as a factor against transfer, such decision would cut against 

forum non conveniens precedent and use of a [Rule] 1874 motion to deter 

and prevent forum shopping."

¶ 26 With respect to whether the case would be transferred to Boone or 

Winnebago County, the trial court ruled: "This is going to be the decision of 

the plaintiff on where to file." 

¶ 27 On September 2, 2014, the trial court issued a written order which stated 

in full:

"This case coming on to be heard on the motion to dismiss and 

transfer pursuant to forum non conveniens, due notice having been given, 

and the court fully advised in the premises,

 

4 Ill. S. Ct. R. 187 (eff. Jan. 4, 2013). 
No. 14-2972

10 

It is hereby ordered that this case is dismissed here in Cook County 

and transferred to Boone County or Winnebago County in accordance 

with the court's oral remarks during the hearing."

¶ 28 This court granted plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal on December 12, 

2014, and this appeal followed.

¶ 29 ANALYSIS 

¶ 30 In this interlocutory appeal, plaintiff appeals the trial court's grant of 

defendants' forum non conveniens motion to transfer the case from Cook 

County. After carefully reviewing all the forum non conveniens factors, we 

cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by granting defendants' 

motion to transfer to Boone County, and plaintiff does not complain that the 

court gave her the additional option of choosing her home forum, Winnebago 

County. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 31 I. Interlocutory Appeal

¶ 32 Defendants moved the trial court pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 

187 (eff. Jan. 4, 2013) to transfer this case from Cook County to Boone County. 

Rule 187(a) provides: "A motion to dismiss or transfer the action under the 

doctrine of forum non conveniens must be filed by a party not later than 90 days 

after the last day allowed for the filing of that party's answer." Ill. S. Ct. R. 

187(a) (eff. Jan. 4, 2013). If the trial court orders an "[i]ntrastate transfer of 
No. 14-2972

11 

action," the "clerk of the court from which a transfer is granted to another 

circuit court in this State on the ground of forum non conveniens shall 

immediately certify and transmit to the clerk of the court to which the transfer is 

ordered the originals of all documents filed in the case together with copies of 

all orders entered therein." Ill. S. Ct. R. 187(c)(1) (eff. Jan. 4, 2013). The rule 

further provides: "The clerk of the court to which the transfer is ordered shall 

file the documents and transcript transmitted to him or her and docket the case, 

and the action shall proceed and be determined as if it had originated in that 

court." Ill. S. Ct. R. 187(c)(1) (eff. Jan. 4, 2013). 

¶ 33 Since this case involved an intrastate transfer, this appeal is an 

interlocutory appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306 (eff. July 1, 

2014). Rule 306 permits a party to petition the appellate court for leave to 

appeal "an order of the circuit court allowing or denying a motion to dismiss on 

the grounds of forum non conveniens, or from an order of the circuit court 

allowing or denying a motion to transfer a case to another county within this 

State on such grounds." Ill. S. Ct. R. 306(a)(2) (eff. July 1, 2014). On December 

12, 2014, this court granted plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal, and this 

appeal followed.

¶ 34 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(c)(1) (eff. July, 1, 2014) requires the 

petition to be accompanied by a supporting record, as that term is defined by 
No. 14-2972

12 

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 328 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994). Rule 328 permits a 

"supporting record" to be authenticated either by a certificate of the circuit court 

clerk or "by the affidavit of the attorney or party filing it." Ill. S. Ct. R. 328 

(eff. Feb. 1, 1994). In the case at bar, the supporting record was authenticated 

by an attorney's affidavit. After the petition was granted, this court did not order 

plaintiff to file a record, as permitted by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(c)(6) 

(eff. July 1, 2014). Defendants then filed a response to the petition but chose 

not to file a supplementary supporting record, as permitted by Illinois Supreme 

Court Rule 306(c)(2) (eff. July 1, 2014). Thus, the record in this appeal 

consists of the supporting record filed by plaintiff.

¶ 35 II. Standard of Review

¶ 36 The standard of review for a forum non conveniens decision is abuse of 

discretion. Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 219 Ill. 2d 430, 441 

(2006). 

¶ 37 "Forum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine founded in 

considerations of fundamental fairness and the sensible and effective 

administration of justice." Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 441 (citing Vinson v. 

Allstate, 144 Ill. 2d 306, 310 (1991)). "This doctrine allows a trial court to 

decline jurisdiction when trial in another forum 'would better serve the ends of 

justice.' " Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 441 (quoting Vinson, 144 Ill. 2d at 310). 
No. 14-2972

13 

"Forum non conveniens is applicable when the choice is between interstate 

forums as well as when the choice is between intrastate forums," such as in the 

case at bar. Glass v. DOT Transportation, Inc., 393 Ill. App. 3d 829, 832 

(2009).

¶ 38 "A trial court is afforded considerable discretion in ruling on a forum non 

conveniens motion." Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 441. "We will reverse the 

circuit court's decision only if defendants have shown that the circuit court 

abused its discretion in balancing the relevant factors." Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d 

at 442 (citing Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167, 176-77 (2003)). 

"A circuit court abuses its discretion in balancing the relevant factors only 

where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the circuit court." 

Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 442 (citing Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 177); Glass, 393 

Ill. App. 3d at 832. 

¶ 39 Both parties agree that we must apply an abuse-of-discretion standard of 

review. "The issue, then, is not what decision we would have reached if we 

were reviewing the facts on a clean slate, but whether the trial court acted in a 

way that no reasonable person would." Vivas v. Boeing Co., 392 Ill. App. 3d 

644, 657 (2009). 

¶ 40 Plaintiff claims in her brief to this court that "the trial court did not 

engage in any analysis of the public and private factors" (emphasis in original) 
No. 14-2972

14 

required in a forum non conveniens analysis. When an appellate court reviews a 

trial court's forum non conveniens order, "[t]he issue is not the detail of the 

underlying order, but whether the circuit court abused its discretion." Estate of 

Rath v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 2012 IL App (5th) 100096, ¶ 23. This court 

has previously stated that it is not "aware of any authority[] supporting the 

proposition that a circuit court's ruling on a forum non conveniens motion must 

be reversed solely for an inadequate record of its analysis." Landmark 

American Insurance Co. v. NIP Group, Inc., 2011 IL App (1st) 101155, ¶ 52. 

As a result, we may affirm a trial court's forum non conveniens order on any 

basis found in the record. Estate of Rath, 2012 IL App (5th) 100096, ¶ 43 

(Spomer, J., specially concurring) (agreeing with the majority that a reviewing 

court may affirm a forum non conveniens order "on any basis in the record"). 

¶ 41 III. Plaintiff's Choice of Forum

¶ 42 "Before weighing the relevant factors, a court must first decide how 

much deference to give to a plaintiff's choice of forum." Vivas, 392 Ill. App. 3d 

at 657 (citing Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 448 (the supreme court determined the 

appropriate amount of deference before weighing the relevant factors)). 

¶ 43 Normally, the plaintiff's choice of forum is a substantial factor in 

deciding a forum non conveniens motion. Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 172; Vivas, 392 

Ill. App. 3d at 657. However, where the plaintiff chooses a forum other than 
No. 14-2972

15 

where she resides, her choice is not entitled to the same weight. Dawdy, 207 Ill. 

2d at 173-76; Vivas, 392 Ill. App. 3d at 657.

¶ 44 Plaintiff argues that, although she did not choose her home forum, her

choice is entitled to substantial deference and she cites in support First

American Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d 511, 517 (2002). In Guerine, our 

supreme court explained: " 'When the home forum is chosen, it is reasonable to 

assume that the choice is convenient. When the plaintiff is foreign to the forum 

chosen, however, the assumption is much less reasonable and the plaintiff's 

choice deserves less deference.' " Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 517 (quoting Wieser v. 

Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 98 Ill. 2d 359, 367 (1983)). 

¶ 45 In Glass, this court stated: "While the deference to be accorded a 

plaintiff as to his choice of forum is less when the plaintiff chooses a forum 

other than where he resides, ' "the deference to be accorded is only less, as 

opposed to none." ' " (Emphases in original.) Glass, 393 Ill. App. 3d at 834 

(quoting Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 518, quoting Elling v. State Farm Mutual 

Automobile Insurance Co., 291 Ill. App. 3d 311, 318 (1997)). 

¶ 46 Thus, plaintiff's choice of a foreign forum receives "some deference" but 

less deference than if she had chosen her home forum. Vivas, 392 Ill. App. 3d 

at 657-58. In addition, the trial court did permit her some choice by allowing 

her to select either Boone County or her home forum, Winnebago County.
No. 14-2972

16 

¶ 47 IV. Private Interest Factors

¶ 48 The Illinois Supreme Court has held that a court must consider both "the 

private and public interest factors" in deciding a forum non conveniens motion. 

Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443; Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 172-73; see also Vivas, 

392 Ill. App. 3d at 658. 

¶ 49 The private interest factors include: " '(1) the convenience of the parties; 

(2) the relative ease of access to sources of testimonial, documentary, and real 

evidence; and (3) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, 

expeditious, and inexpensive.' " Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443 (quoting 

Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 516-17); Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 172; see also Vivas, 392 

Ill. App. 3d at 658. 

¶ 50 A. Convenience of Parties

¶ 51 First, the convenience of the parties does not strongly favor either county. 

Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443. Since defendants sought the transfer to Boone

County, the convenience of defendants and the witnesses under their control 

"fades as an issue." Susman v. North Star Trust Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 142789, 

¶ 27. In her brief to this court, plaintiff, who resides in adjacent Winnebago 

County, does not argue that Boone County is personally inconvenient for her. In 

addition, the trial court permitted her to select her home forum, if she so 

chooses. Instead of arguing her own inconvenience, plaintiff argues that 
No. 14-2972

17 

defendants have "significant connections to Cook County." However, one party 

cannot argue the other party's convenience. Vivas, 392 Ill. App. 3d at 658.5

 

Thus, the convenience of the parties does not strongly favor either Cook County 

or Boone County. 

¶ 52 B. Ease of Access to Evidence

¶ 53 Second, the relative ease of access to sources of testimonial, documentary 

and real evidence does not indicate that the trial court abused its discretion. 

Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443. 

¶ 54 1. Testimonial Evidence

¶ 55 The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that access to 

testimonial evidence favored Boone County when the majority of witnesses live 

or work in Boone County and neighboring Winnebago, McHenry and Ogle 

Counties, and none of the witness affidavits submitted by plaintiff stated that 

Cook County would be more convenient.

¶ 56 According to plaintiff's own list of witnesses, not a single witness is 

"locat[ed]" in Cook County, except one of her experts. In her brief to this court, 

plaintiff argues that "one of Plaintiff's experts hails from Cook County and 

most, if not all, of Plaintiff's other experts will be from states other than 

 5 As we discuss supra ¶ 19 and infra ¶ 56, not a single witness listed by 

plaintiff is "locat[ed]" in Cook County, except for plaintiff's economic expert, Stan 

Smith.
No. 14-2972

18 

Illinois." Plaintiff states that "Illinois precedent does recognize that the fact that 

plaintiff's expert 'has an office in the plaintiff's chosen forum' is relevant to the 

determination of a forum non conveniens motion.' (Emphasis in original.) See 

Ammerman v. Raymond, 379 Ill. App. 3d 878, 890 (2008)." The quote, of 

which plaintiff provided only a portion, states: "courts 'should be cautious *** 

not to give undue weight to the fact that a plaintiff's treating physician or expert 

has an office in the plaintiff's chosen forum.' " (Emphasis in original.) 

Ammerman, 379 Ill. App. 3d at 890 (quoting Bland v. Norfolk & Western Ry. 

Co., 116 Ill. 2d 217, 227 (1987)). 

¶ 57 Echoing the same concern expressed by this court in Ammerman, our 

supreme court has stated that "courts are cautious not to give undue weight to 

the fact that a plaintiff's expert witness maintains an office in the plaintiff's 

chosen forum. To do so would allow a plaintiff to easily frustrate the forum 

non conveniens principle by selecting an expert witness in what would actually 

be an inconvenient forum." Fennell v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 2012 IL 

113812, ¶ 33; Bland v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 116 Ill. 2d 217, 227 (1987)

(listing several cases supporting this point). 

¶ 58 Thus, we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion in 

concluding that the ease of access to testimonial evidence favored Boone 

County. 
No. 14-2972

19 

¶ 59 2. Documentary Evidence

¶ 60 Plaintiff does not dispute defendants' contention that many sources of 

documentary proof are located in Boone County or nearby Winnebago and Ogle 

Counties. For example, defendants stated in an interrogatory response that the 

"[b]usiness records for Boone County customers are kept in the Davis Junction, 

Illinois ADS facility," which is in Ogle County.

¶ 61 However, plaintiff is correct that this factor is much less significant than 

it used to be. As this court has previously observed, "the location of documents, 

records and photographs has become a less significant factor in forum non 

conveniens analysis in the modern age of email, internet, telefax, copying 

machines and world-wide delivery services, since they can now be easily 

copied and sent." Vivas, 392 Ill. App. 3d at 659. 

¶ 62 In addition, defendant Advanced Disposal, as a party, is under an 

obligation to produce its employees and relevant documents, whether the suit 

proceeds in Boone or Cook County. Susman, 2015 IL App (1st) 142789, ¶ 28.

Supreme Court Rule 201(b)(1) provides that "a party may obtain by discovery 

full disclosure regarding any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in 

the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party 

seeking disclosure or of any other party, including the existence, description, 

nature, custody, custodian, and location of any documents or tangible things, 
No. 14-2972

20 

and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts." 

Ill. S. Ct. R. 201 (eff. July 1, 2014). Supreme Court Rule 204 provides: 

"Service of notice of the taking of the deposition of a party or person who is 

currently an officer, director, or employee of a party is sufficient to require the 

appearance of the deponent and the production of any documents or tangible 

things listed in the notice." Ill. S. Ct. R. 204(a)(3) (eff. July 1, 2014). If a party 

refuses to comply with discovery rules or orders, a court in either Cook County 

or Boone County is fully empowered to enforce them. Ill. S. Ct. R. 219 (eff. 

July 1, 2002) ("Consequences of Refusal to Comply with Rules or Order 

Relating to Discovery or Pretrial Conferences"). 

¶ 63 Thus, ease of access to documentary evidence does not strongly favor 

either forum. 

¶ 64 3. Real Evidence

¶ 65 In her brief to this court, plaintiff states that "the only known items of 

nondocumentary, tangible evidence are Decedent's vehicle, located in McHenry 

County, and the truck" driven by defendant Padgett. In her brief to the trial 

court, plaintiff stated that the truck was stored in Ogle County. Thus, the 

location of real evidence could favor adjacent Boone County over more distant 

Cook County, but the real evidence is probably not a factor. It would be a rare 

instance for the vehicle to be viewed by the trier of fact when photographs are 
No. 14-2972

21 

normally used for this purpose. Although our supreme court listed the location 

of a defendant's vehicle as a consideration in a forum non conveniens case, it 

was not a significant factor in the supreme court's analysis. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d 

at 524-25. 

¶ 66 C. All Other Practical Problems

¶ 67 Third, consideration of " 'all other practical problems that make trial of a 

case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive' " also does not indicate an abuse of 

discretion by the trial court. Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443 (quoting Guerine, 

198 Ill. 2d at 516-17); Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 172; see also Vivas, 392 Ill. App. 

3d at 658. 

¶ 68 As plaintiff correctly observes, unwilling witnesses can be compelled to 

testify at trial in Boone County just like they can in any other Illinois county 

pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 237(b) (eff. July 1, 2005) ("If the party 

or person [subpoenaed] is a nonresident of the county, the court may order any 

terms and conditions in connection with his or her appearance at the trial or 

other evidentiary hearing that are just, including payment of his or her 

reasonable expenses."). 

¶ 69 Plaintiff argues that "Cook County is more convenient for purposes of 

flights for out-of-state corporate representatives and other witnesses." 

However, the only corporation in this case is defendant Advanced Disposal and, 
No. 14-2972

22 

as we observed above, defendant, as a party, must produce its employees and 

relevant documents, whether the suit proceeds in Boone or Cook County. 

Susman, 2015 IL App (1st) 142789, ¶ 28. As for other witnesses, they will be 

coming primarily from northern Illinois and will most likely be driving rather 

than flying. Thus, proximity to O'Hare and Midway Airports is not as 

compelling a consideration as plaintiff claims.

¶ 70 Defendants are correct that viewing the accident site will be an option if 

the trial proceeds in Boone County. Regarding this issue, our supreme court 

has stated:

"This convenience factor is not concerned with the necessity of viewing 

the site of the injury, but rather is concerned with the possibility of 

viewing the site, if appropriate. See Gulf Oil [Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 

501, 508, (1947)]. Adhering to Gulf Oil, this court has recognized that 

'the possibility of having a jury view the scene of an accident is an 

important consideration in ruling upon a forum non conveniens motion.' 

(Emphasis added.) Moore [v. Chicago & North Western Transportation 

Co., 99 Ill. 2d 73, 80 (1983)]. Further, the necessity or propriety of 

viewing the scene is a decision left within the discretion of the trial court. 

See Cook [v. General Electric Co., 146 Ill. 2d 548, 559 (1992)]; 
No. 14-2972

23 

Washington [v. Illinois Power Co., 144 Ill. 2d 395, 403 (1991)]." 

(Emphasis in original and omitted). Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 178-79. 

See also Fennell, 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 37 ("This possibility [of viewing the 

premises] is an important consideration in ruling on a forum non conveniens

motion.").

¶ 71 Thus, a consideration of all other practical problems favors Boone 

County.

¶ 72 In sum, consideration of the private factors does not lead us to conclude 

that the trial court abused its discretion, where the convenience of the parties 

does not strongly favor either Cook or Boone County, and the ease of access to 

proof and the other practical problems favor Boone County. 

¶ 73 V. Public Interest Factors

¶ 74 When deciding a forum non conveniens motion, a court must also 

consider the public interest factors. These factors include: "(1) the interest in 

deciding controversies locally; (2) the unfairness of imposing trial expense and 

the burden of jury duty on residents of a forum that has little connection to the 

litigation; and (3) the administrative difficulties presented by adding litigation 

to already congested court dockets." Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443-44 (citing 

Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 516-17); Gridley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile 
No. 14-2972

24 

Insurance Co., 217 Ill. 2d 158, 170 (2005); Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 173. See also 

Vivas, 392 Ill. App. 3d at 660. 

¶ 75 At the heart of this issue is an accident which occurred in Boone County. 

The only connection between this case and Cook County is that defendant 

Advanced Disposal also does business in Cook County. Thus, "the interest in 

deciding controversies locally" and the fairness in imposing a burden and 

expense on residents of a forum with a "connection to the litigation" favors 

Boone County. Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443-44. 

¶ 76 Although "[c]ourt congestion is a relatively insignificant factor," it is still 

a factor. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 517. It would be hard to argue that Cook 

County is not congested. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 525 (observing that "Cook 

County circuit court is more congested" than other Illinois county circuit 

courts); Trent v. Caterpillar, Inc., 234 Ill. App. 3d 839, 846 (1992) ("the court 

dockets in Cook County are congested"). According to the 2012 case statistics 

from the annual report of the Illinois courts, over 21,000 cases were filed in the 

law division of Cook County seeking over $50,000, while just 44 such cases 

were filed in Boone County. 

¶ 77 Although the average law jury verdict over $50,000 in 2012 had a shorter 

time lapse between filing and verdict in Cook County than in Boone County, 

this is the only number cited by the parties from the 2012 and 2013 annual 
No. 14-2972

25 

reports that favors Cook County. Our supreme court has repeatedly directed us 

to look to the annual report of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts 

when assessing court congestion for a forum non conveniens motion and so, as 

directed, we will take judicial notice of the annual reports. Dawdy v. Union 

Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167, 181 (2003) ("This court has found the annual 

report of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (Annual Report) to be 

a proper reference in assessing court congestion [for a forum non conveniens 

motion]."); Washington v. Illinois Power Co., 144 Ill. 2d 395, 403 (1991) ("This 

court has found the annual report of the Administrative Office of the Illinois 

Courts to be a proper source of reference in assessing court congestion [for a 

forum non conveniens motion]."). See also Cook v. General Electric Co., 146 

Ill. 2d 548, 559 (1992) (relying on the Annual Report from the Administrative 

Office of the Illinois Courts in order to determine relative court congestion 

between two counties for a forum non conveniens motion); Ill. R. Evid. 201(d) 

(eff. Jan. 1, 2011) ("A court shall take judicial notice if requested by a party and 

supplied with the necessary information."). 

¶ 78 As plaintiff observed in its brief to this court, the 2013 annual report of 

the Illinois courts reveals that, while the average time lapse in Cook County 

remained at 36 months in 2013, the average in Boone County dropped from 56 

months in 2012 to only 22 months in 2013—or 14 months less than Cook 
No. 14-2972

26 

County. When a county like Boone has so few cases, just a couple of complex 

cases can skew its average atypically upward in any given year. In addition, 

while Cook County had 438 law jury verdicts in 2013 that were over $50,000, 

Boone County had just one. Although the average time lapse in 2012 could 

favor Cook County, a review of all the public factors shows that the trial court 

did not abuse its discretion by finding that these factors, when considered 

together, favored Boone County. 

¶ 79 CONCLUSION

¶ 80 After carefully reviewing all the forum non conveniens factors, we cannot 

conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendants' motion 

to transfer to Boone County, or alternatively Winnebago County, when neither 

the private nor public factors favor Cook County and less deference is given to 

plaintiff's choice of a foreign forum. In addition, consideration of (1) the 

witnesses, (2) the viewing of the accident site and (3) the policy to decide such

controversies locally all favor Boone County. Neither plaintiff nor defendants

complain that the trial court gave plaintiff the additional option of choosing her

home forum of Winnebago County, so that issue is not before us. For the 

foregoing reasons, we affirm.

¶ 81 Affirmed.