Procedure To Obtain Discovery Documents
The process to obtain documents from a party is as follows:
1. A. written request is served requesting the production of records or other tangible items and requiring production within 28 days.
2. A party is required to produce not only all documents and other tangible items, but also all “retrievable information in computer storage.” Supreme Court Rule 201(b).
3. The responding party must produce the documents or object within 28 days. The records must be produced either in the manner in which they are kept in the usual course of business or organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the request.
4. The responding party is obligated to produce an affidavit stating that the production is complete in accordance with the request. Under the prior version of the rule, an affidavit was required only if requested by the opposing party.
5. The responding party has a duty to seasonably supplement any prior response to the production with documents that subsequently come into the party’s possession or control or become known to the party. Thus, in divorce litigation, once it has been requested that a party produce all banking statements and credit card bills, that party now has a duty to produce additional statements as they are received during the course of the litigation.
6. Upon written objection, it is the burden of the party seeking production to file a motion asking the court to order production or resolve any objections to discovery.
7. A common misconception is that Rule 214 requires the responding party to file a written response. No such requirement is found in the language of the Rule or the case law.
Parties are required to produce all documents within their possession and control. In divorce litigation, it is not uncommon for a party’s records to be in the physical possession of some other person, such as an accountant or lawyer. A party is required to produce documents within the possession of a third party if the party maintains control over those documents. See Central national Bank in Chicago v. Baime.
