People Ex Rel. Scott v. Silverstein
87 Ill. 2d 167, 429 N.E.2d 483, 57 Ill. Dec. 585 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's order compelling a non-party witness to testify or produce documents in a pending civil case is not a final and appealable order. To obtain appellate review, the non-party must refuse to comply with the order, be held in contempt, and then appeal the final judgment of contempt.
Facts:
- The Illinois Attorney General filed a lawsuit against officers and directors of the George F. Harding Museum, including George A. Otlewis.
- William Currie, a reporter for the Chicago Tribune, had written several articles related to the subject matter of the museum lawsuit.
- As part of the litigation, Otlewis served a subpoena on Currie, who was not a party to the lawsuit, demanding he appear for a deposition and produce certain documents.
- Prior to being subpoenaed, Currie had disclosed some information to Donald C. Mulack, a special assistant Attorney General and lead counsel for the state in the museum case.
Procedural Posture:
- In a pending civil case in the circuit court of Cook County, defendant George A. Otlewis served a deposition subpoena on non-party William Currie.
- Currie filed a motion to quash the subpoena, asserting a reporter's privilege.
- The circuit court (trial court) denied Currie's motion to quash, thereby ordering him to appear for the deposition, though it limited the scope of questioning.
- Currie, the witness, appealed the circuit court's denial of his motion to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court held that the order was appealable and reversed the trial court's decision on the merits, finding in favor of Currie.
- Otlewis, the defendant, was then granted an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court to review the appellate court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a trial court's order denying a non-party reporter's motion to quash a deposition subpoena a final and appealable order?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Ryan
No. A trial court's order denying a non-party reporter's motion to quash a deposition subpoena is not a final and appealable order. Illinois court rules generally permit appeals only from final judgments that determine the litigation on the merits. A discovery order, such as the denial of a motion to quash, is considered a preliminary, interlocutory order within a pending case, not a final judgment. The proper and established method for a non-party to test the validity of such a discovery order is to refuse to comply. If the trial court then enters a judgment of contempt (e.g., imposing a fine or imprisonment), that contempt order is considered a final and appealable judgment because it is collateral to the main case and represents the conclusion of the proceeding against the witness. Only at that point can the witness appeal and have the appellate court review the propriety of the underlying discovery order.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the final judgment rule in the context of discovery orders involving non-parties. It prevents the interruption and delay of trial court proceedings with piecemeal appeals on discovery disputes. By requiring a non-party to risk a contempt citation to gain the right to appeal, the ruling creates a significant procedural hurdle, ensuring that only those with a strong and good-faith basis for resisting discovery will pursue an appeal. This procedure forces the witness to demonstrate the seriousness of their objection, thereby filtering out frivolous challenges and preserving judicial resources.
