Page 21 - John Hundley 2018

Litigation Law Roundup

Sharp Thinking

No. 156 Perspectives on Developments in the Law from Sharp-Hundley, P.C. July 2018
Court Without Jurisdiction Can’t

Backdate Post-Trial E-Filed Motion

Neither Supreme Court Rule 183 nor the rules on e-filing permit a court to backdate a filing when
the lapse of the 30-day period under Supreme Court Rule 303 and 735 ILCS 5/2-1203(a) means that
the Court has lost jurisdiction.

So held the Appellate Court for the Second District recently in a case where an unsuccessful
plaintiff sought to file a motion to reconsider a judgment but was unable to upload the motion until 3
minutes too late under § 2-1203(a). Peraino v. County of Winnebago, 2018 IL App (2d) 170368.

In Peraino, plaintiff’s attorney did not finish the motion to reconsider until 11:55 p.m. on the last
day it could be filed. However, his assistant then encountered difficulty e-filing it, with the fault lying
either with his assistant or his e-filing service provider. As a result, it was not accepted until 12:03
a.m.

The Appellate Court reasoned that difficulties attributable to the filer are not grounds for changing
the upload time under e-filing rules. More important, it said, “rules that give a court authority to take
specific actions presuppose that the court has jurisdiction of the case.” Because no post-trial motion
under § 2-1203(a) was filed by midnight on the last day, the trial court lost jurisdiction of the case and
was powerless to grant plaintiff the back-dating relief sought. Although e-filing rules and Supreme
Court Rule 183 “purport to allow the trial court to backdate at any time, the lapse of the 30 days
divested the court of jurisdiction to do so,” the Appellate Court said.

Appeals Court Accepts Self-Authentication Theory

A panel of the Illinois Appellate Court recently accepted the theory that documents produced by a
party during discovery can be deemed self-authenticating if the producing
party does not dispute that production.

Ruling in Lamorak Ins. Co. v. Kone, Inc., 2018 IL App (1st) 163398, the
panel dealt with three documents apparently from the 1970s and 1980s for
which no party offered any foundational evidence under Illinois Rules of
Evidence 803(16) (statements in ancient documents) and 901(b)(8) (ancient
documents or data compilations). Relying upon a magistrate judge’s
statement in Architectural Iron Workers Local No. 63 Welfare Fund v. United
Contractors, Inc., 46 F.Supp.2d 769 (N.D. Ill. 1999), that “documents

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
Sharp Thinking is an occasional newsletter of Sharp-Hundley, P.C. addressing developments in the law which may be of interest. Nothing contained in Sharp Thinking
shall be construed to create an attorney-client relation where none previously has existed, nor with respect to any particular matter. The perspectives herein constitute
educational material on general legal topics and are not legal advice applicable to any particular situation. To establish an attorney-client relation or to obtain legal advice on
your particular situation, contact a Sharp-Hundley lawyer at 618-242-0200 or one of the addresses provided on page 2 of this newsletter.