Court Opinion

ID: 9719889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:08:02.447282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:10.808950
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE APPLETON, specially concurring: While I concur in the majority’s result, I write separately to take potential exception to the broad statement by the majority that the duty to produce a witness pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 237(b) is strictly limited to officers, directors, or employees of a party. Without disagreeing with the express language of the rule, it is not beyond conception that a person could be employed by “Corporation A” but, by his or her service to “Corporation B” pursuant to a contractual agreement, by the determination of the employee’s income or by actual conduct (including the right to direct by Corporation B) could be properly deemed in fact to be an employee of Corporation B. There may be many purposes for such contractual arrangements — one being the potential avoidance of Rule 237(b) duties to produce. As there is no evidence in this record of the contractual relationship between Dr. Carlson’s employer and defendant or, as importantly, any evidence of intent on the part of defendant to thereby evade the strictures of Rule 237(b), I concur.