Cooney & Conway v. LaConte

Citation: 385 Ill. App. 3d 386Docket: Nos. 1—06—2163, 1—06—2691 cons.

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; June 5, 2008; Illinois; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The court, led by Justice Campbell, addressed a discovery dispute within the consolidated Cook County litigation titled In re: All Asbestos Litigation. The law firm Cooney and Conway (C&C) represents plaintiffs alleging fatal cancers due to asbestos exposure, filing suit against Warren Pumps, LLC, and Riley Stoker. C&C requested extensive product sales information from Warren Pumps covering a 38-year period, which the company initially complied with. However, C&C subsequently filed a motion to compel further discovery, which attorney Lisa A. LaConte contested. The trial court granted C&C's motion and imposed a nominal contempt ruling against LaConte.

On appeal, LaConte argued that the trial court erred by compelling discovery without specific allegations linking any plaintiff's exposure to Warren Pumps’ products at particular locations in Illinois. The appellate court reversed the trial court's orders, vacated the contempt ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The background indicates that Cook County asbestos litigations are consolidated for efficiency, with defendants required to provide comprehensive records of asbestos-containing product sales under a 1985 court order. C&C's extensive discovery request included documents from 1948 to 1986. LaConte countered that Warren Pumps had already provided responses and additional documentation specific to relevant jobsites. Furthermore, LaConte noted that records were not organized geographically, complicating the fulfillment of the discovery requests. C&C did not respond to LaConte's assertions.

On May 3, 2006, the trial court ordered Warren Pumps to comply with C&C's request for production of documents. Warren Pumps objected and sought reconsideration or an interlocutory appeal, but the trial court denied this motion on June 13, 2006. Following this, on July 7, 2006, LaConte informed the court that Warren Pumps could not comply with the order because it did not provide products to any jobsites mentioned in the 193 Illinois complaints against it. LaConte argued that the court’s order was excessively broad and that Warren Pumps had made a good-faith effort to comply with discovery. She requested a finding of friendly contempt and/or interlocutory appeal. The trial court found friendly contempt against LaConte for indicating Warren Pumps' inability to comply and imposed a $1 fine. LaConte subsequently filed a timely appeal.

In the appeal, LaConte contended that C&C's discovery motion was overbroad, lacking specific allegations linking any plaintiff's exposure to Warren Pumps’ products at particular locations. She argued that compelling the production of records spanning nearly 40 years across all 102 Illinois counties was inappropriate, especially since C&C had only alleged exposure in 48 counties. LaConte pointed out that out of 1,444 jobsites listed in C&C's complaints, only a fraction were relevant, and that Warren Pumps could only feasibly search records based on customer names at specific sites. She asserted that C&C’s requests constituted an improper fishing expedition to uncover new claims rather than supporting existing ones, and emphasized the need for discovery to be relevant to the specific cases at hand, as outlined in Supreme Court Rules.

LaConte references the Texas case In re Sears, Roebuck & Co., where a Michigan plaintiff with mesothelioma sued Sears and 37 other defendants, claiming asbestos exposure from his family's plumbing business and his career as a plumber. The plaintiff identified 11 product categories from 24 manufacturers, with only Hobart boilers and water heaters linked to Sears prior to his union career. Two months before trial, the plaintiff requested detailed discovery from Sears on 200 products unrelated to asbestos, which Sears objected to. After the plaintiff's death, the trial court compelled Sears to produce records for 1940-78, excluding only mundane items. The Texas appeals court found the trial court's order overly broad, emphasizing that discovery must be reasonably related to the case. It ruled that the plaintiff's death does not grant his estate a claim against all asbestos product sellers and reversed the trial court’s order, highlighting the need for more narrowly tailored discovery requests. C&C argues that the nature of consolidated asbestos litigation necessitates broader discovery, asserting that identifying a defendant's product at a jobsite is insufficient for establishing exposure. C&C cites the case Pemberton v. Tieman to support its stance on the relevance of discovery requests, contrasting it with the Leeson case involving unrelated claims, which was deemed oppressive.

Warren Pumps highlights that case management order No. 18 mandates that discovery in the consolidated asbestos litigation be tailored to specific cases, jobsites, and defendants. The standing schedule for pretrial activity requires plaintiffs to provide answers to standardized interrogatories at least 270 days before trial, detailing the defendants, products, jobsites, timeframes, and witness representation. C&C’s discovery requests are deemed overbroad and exceed the stipulations of case management order No. 18. The court finds C&C’s demands non-compliant with the established discovery rules. Consequently, the trial court’s order compelling Warren Pumps to produce excessive documentation is vacated, as is the friendly contempt citation against attorney LaConte, whose actions did not demonstrate contempt. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings in line with this opinion. O’BRIEN and MURPHY, JJ. concur. The opinion specifically addresses the appeal of Warren Pumps, noting the extensive nature of asbestos litigation and C&C's limited jobsite listings across Illinois counties.