Page 22 - John Hundley 2018

produced in response to discovery are self-authenticating,” the panel held that the otherwise
unauthenticated documents could be considered.

We think Lamorak is incorrect on this point. A party’s duty in discovery is to produce all
documents in its possession, custody or control, regardless of how they got there, and regardless of
whether they accurately speak for the producing party. Rule 901(a) requires “evidence sufficient to
support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” Courts degrade the
reliability of evidence when they admit a document without any foundational evidence that the
document is what it is purported to be.

WestLaw Cites Are Not “Any Authority”

Federal cases published only in the electronic services “do not carry any authority before an
Illinois court,” according to a panel of the Appellate Court in Chicago.

Writing in U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Randhurst Crossing LLC, 2018 IL App (1st) 170348, the panel
treated WestLaw citations like “unreported decisions [that] have no precedential value.”

The panel said this was “even more true for decisions from foreign jurisdictions,” seeming to treat
the Northern District of Illinois as a foreign jurisdiction.

Judge Must Provide Notice Of Indirect Contempt Hearing

A trial judge who found the respondent in indirect contempt of court upon presentation of a petition
for a rule to show cause denied the respondent of her procedural rights, a panel of the Appellate
Court in Chicago has ruled.

Writing in Milton v. Therra, 2018 IL App 171392, the panel said that
“because judges in indirect contempt proceedings do not have personal
knowledge of the allegedly contumacious conduct, the contemnor cannot be
punished summarily.”

Rather, the judge must first enter the rule to show cause, which provides
notice of a separate hearing on the contempt charge. Notice of the indirect civil
contempt proceeding must (i) “contain an adequate description of the facts on
which the contempt charge is based” and (ii) “inform the alleged contemnor of the time and place of
an evidentiary hearing on the charge within a reasonable time in advance of the hearing,” the panel
said.

Moreover, the alleged contemnor “must be allowed to present evidence on her own behalf so that
she has a full opportunity for explanation” of her allegedly contumacious conduct.

- John T. Hundley

Brenda/SharpThinking/#156.pdf
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
SHARP-HUNDLEY, P.C.

1115 Harrison, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 • Telephone 618-242-0200 • Facsimile 618-242-1170
www.sharp-hundley.com

Business Transactions • Litigation • Financial Law • Real Estate • Corporate Law • Commercial Disputes • Creditors’
Rights • Arbitration & Mediation • Estate Planning • Probate

John T. Hundley: John@sharp-hundley.com; Michael A. Duhn: Mduhn@sharp-hundley.com;
Trevor S. Sawyer: Trevor@sharp-hundley.com

Advertising Material