USA – ILLINOIS Trends and Developments Contributed by: Michael Forde, Brian O’Meara, Ellie Carey and John Ransford, Forde & O’Meara LLP
26 (b)(4)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, Committee Notes. By contrast, under Illinois law, communications between attorneys and their experts are discover - able. In many cases, attorneys for the competing parties still agree to follow the federal practice. • Third, the form of expert reports/disclosures differs between federal and Illinois practice. In the federal system, Rule 26 (a)(2)(B) contains very detailed requirements: an expert must issue a report that includes “a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them”, “the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them”, “any exhibits that will be used to summarise or support them”, “the witness’s qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years”, “a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition”, and “a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case”. The Illinois rule is much narrower. Supreme Court Rule 213 (f)(3) says that “upon written interroga - tory”, for retained experts, the party (not the expert) must identify “(i) the subject matter on which the witness will testify; (ii) the conclusions and opin - ions of the witness and the bases therefor; (iii) the qualifications of the witness; and (iv) any reports prepared by the witness about the case”. Unlike the federal rule, there is no requirement to identify the basis and reasons for the expert’s opinions, the facts or data considered by the witness, the exhibits that the expert will use, the expert’s prior publications and testimony, or the witness’s com - pensation. Thus, the expert disclosure required in Illinois has much less detail than under the federal rule – often just a few paragraphs. Nevertheless, for tactical reasons, parties sometimes choose to create reports that go beyond the Illinois rule’s requirements and more closely resemble that of the federal disclosure practice. Divisions of the Cook County Circuit Court The Cook County Circuit Court is divided into divi - sions, which in turn are divided into sections. These divisions and sections differ in their jurisdictions, though there is significant overlap among the divi - sions. Civil lawsuits of any consequence will be filed in either the General Chancery Section of the Chancery
Division, or the Law Division. The jurisdiction of each is set forth in Cook County General Order No. 1.2, 2.1. The General Chancery Section hears cases fall - ing into a broad set of categories, including “ class actions , arbitration , injunctions , temporary restraining orders ... mandamus , quo warranto , declaratory judg- ments , interpleader , ne exeat , specific performance , rescission and reformation of contracts , creditors ’ rights , complaints for contribution , actions to quiet title and the setting aside of deeds , partition , equita- ble liens , redemption rights , declarations concerning the constructions of trust and wills ( other than during the period of an estate administration ), the appoint- ment of trustees , successor trustees and the removal of trustees ( other than during the period of an estate administration ), receiverships , accounting cases , dis- solution of partnerships and corporations , or other proceedings under the Corporations and Partnership Acts ... statutory review , certiorari ... and all adminis- trative review ( except tax matters , matters under the Unemployment Insurance Act ( 820 ILCS 405 / 1100 )) ” (Cook County General Order 1.2, 2.1 (b)(1)). The Law Division hears, inter alia, “civil actions at law” in which the plaintiff seeks in excess of USD100,000 (Cook County General Order 1.2, 2.1 (a)). The nature of the action does not matter: if a case is an “action at law” (as opposed to equity), and the damages claimed exceed USD100,000, it falls within the jurisdiction of the Law Division. This obviously includes claims for breach of contract, torts, nuisance, and statutory claims. The jurisdictions of the Chancery Division and the Law Division are obviously not mutually exclusive – a law - suit might include, for instance, claims for dissolution of a partnership (Chancery) and for money damages for breach of the partnership agreement (Law), or claims that seek both a declaratory judgment (Chan - cery) and monetary damages (Law). Thus, one obvious question is which division hears a case that falls within the purview of both divisions. The answer is two-fold. First, the plaintiff decides in which division to file the case. They can file in either Law or Chancery, but there is an important caveat: the assigned judge has the authority – either on the
1130 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook