Circuit court rule places undue burden on parties

In September 2007, a certified question was sent to the Supreme Court in Vision Point of Sale, Inc. v. Haas. The complaint alleged, among other things, violation of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, but the Court only determined whether or not a court can consider facts and circumstance of record beyond the reason for noncompliance when determining whether good cause exists under Supreme Court Rule 183 for grant of an extension of time to remedy an unintentional noncompliance with a procedural requirement. Plaintiffs had failed to file their response to defendant’s request to admit with the clerk, as was required under local rule, so the trial court deemed the requests admitted. Later, after the defendant caused numerous procedural delays and failed to comply with several court orders, the trial court reconsidered and allowed an extension for plaintiff’s response to defendant’s request to admit. The defendant challenged this reconsideration, and the Court said that discretion may be used to extend a deadline when good cause for noncompliance is shown, but that good cause could not be shown by considering facts outside of the reason for noncompliance.

However, the Court also found that the requirement to file a response to a request to admit with the clerk, as outlined in Rule 3.1(c) of the circuit court of Cook County, was an undue burden on the parties and ran contrary to Supreme Court Rule 216, which only requires that the response is served in a timely manner. This finding allowed plaintiffs an extension regardless of the adverse answer to the certified question.