Court Opinion

ID: 9727014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:17:25.713824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:32.905799
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, concurring in part and dissenting in part: The assessment of the $100-per-day fine for contempt should be vacated without remand. As the majority points out, the appellants’ counsel “asked the trial court to enter an order of contempt so appellants could appeal the ruling as to the discoverability of the document.” 196 Ill. App. 3d at 128. Contrary to the majority’s thinking “it likely that appellants’ attorney would have been held in contempt” (196 Ill. App. 3d 130), this court should not hypothecate on what might have happened. The record before this court justifies a finding of “good faith.” The trial court was not held in disdain or subjected to scorn. Sakosko v. Memorial Hospital (1988), 167 Ill. App. 3d 842, 848, 522 N.E.2d 273, 277. The documents sought to be discovered were the property of a nonparty to the action. I disagree that because Novotny is a nonparty, the question of “good faith” loses importance. As stated in Sakosko v. Memorial Hospital (1988), 167 Ill. App. 3d 842, 848, 522 N.E.2d 273, 277: “The contempt order was entered at defendant’s request, as it was the proper procedure to follow in order to test on appeal the trial court’s discovery orders. [Citation.] Defendant was not being contemptuous in that the court was not held in disdain or subjected to scorn. [Citation.] Instead, defendant was acting in a good-faith effort to secure an interpretation of the two privileges in question.” I would vacate the fine levied against Novotny for contempt. In all other matters I would affirm the trial court.