Motion to Compel Disclosures of Expert Opinion in Illinois

Importance of Motion to Compel Disclosures of Expert Opinion

“Discovery is not a tactical game; rather, it is intended to be a mechanism for the ascertainment of truth, for the purpose of promoting either a fair settlement or a fair trial.” (Boland v. Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corp. (2000) 309 Ill. App. 3d 645, 651; Ostendorf v. International Harvester Co. (1982) 89 Ill.2d 273, 282 [quoting Boland v. Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corp. (2000) 309 Ill. App. 3d 645, 651].)

Supreme Court Rule 220(b)(1). That rule provides:

“In order to insure fair and equitable preparation for trial by all parties the identity of an expert who is retained to render an opinion at trial on behalf of a party must be disclosed by that party ....” (Tzystuck v. Chicago Transit Authority (1998) 124 Ill. 2d 226, 233 quoting 107 Ill.2d R. 220(b)(1).)

Subsection (a)(1) of Rule 220, which defines an expert witness as:

“a person who ... possesses knowledge of a specialized nature beyond that of the average person on a factual matter material to a claim or defense in pending litigation and who may be expected to render an opinion at trial.” (Tzystuck,supra, 124 Ill. 2d at 233 quoting 107 Ill.2d R. 220(a)(1).)

Procedural Requirements for Filing a Motion to Compel Disclosures of Expert Opinion

“[T]he purpose of the discovery rules requiring timely disclosure of expert witnesses and their opinions is to avoid surprise and to discourage tactical gamesmanship.” (Boland v. Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corp. (2000) 309 Ill. App. 3d 645, 651 quoting Warrender v. Millsop (1999) 304 Ill. App.3d 260, 269 [discussing Supreme Court Rule 213].)

Specificity of Expert Disclosure Requirement

“Subsection (b)(1) of Rule 220 requires disclosure of only ‘the identity of an expert who is retained to render an opinion at trial,’ and subsection (c) requires ‘the party retaining or employing an expert witness’ to comply with the rules governing discovery of such expert's opinions.” (Tzystuck, supra, at 234 citing 107 Ill.2d Rules 220(b)(1), (c).)

Format of Disclosure

Rule 220(c)(1) provides in relevant part: “Upon interrogatory propounded for that purpose, the party retaining or employing an expert witness shall be required to state:

1. the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify;
2. his conclusions and opinions and the bases therefor; and
3. his qualifications.

Timing of Disclosures

“In order to insure fair and equitable preparation for trial by all parties the identity of an expert who is retained to render an opinion at trial on behalf of a party must be disclosed by that party either within 90 days after the substance of the expert's opinion first becomes known to that party or his counsel or, if the substance of the expert's opinion is then known, at the first pretrial conference in the case, whichever is later.” (See, Baird v. Adeli (1991) 214 Ill. App. 3d 47, 59 quoting Rule 220.)

And further:

“All dates set by the trial court shall be chosen to insure that discovery regarding such expert witnesses will be completed not later than 60 days before the date on which the trial court reasonably anticipates the trial will commence.” (Id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

When the trial court has imposed sanctions for noncompliance with Rule 220, the trial court's ruling will not be upset in the absence of a showing that the ruling resulted from an abuse of discretion. (Baird v. Adeli (1991) 214 Ill. App. 3d 47, 60 citing Dixson v. University of Chicago Hospitals Clinics (1989) 190 Ill. App.3d 369.)

Meet and Confer

“Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201(k) (Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(k) (eff. Jan. 1, 1967)) provides in pertinent part as follows:

‘The parties shall facilitate discovery under these rules and shall make reasonable attempts to resolve differences over discovery. Every motion with respect to discovery shall incorporate a statement that counsel responsible for trial of the case after personal consultation and reasonable attempts to resolve differences have been unable to reach an accord or that opposing counsel made himself or herself unavailable for personal consultation or was unreasonable in attempts to resolve differences.’” (Id., quoting Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(k) [eff. July 1, 2002].)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on Motions to Compel Disclosures of Expert Opinion

“The purpose of Rule 220, generally, is to promote the timely and good-faith pretrial disclosure of expert witnesses to prevent surprise and to facilitate pretrial investigation of credentials of the expert and preparation of cross-examination as well as the substance of the testimony of the opposing party's own expert." (Baird, supra, 214 Ill. App. 3d at 60 [internal citations omitted].)

“Supreme Court Rule 220 (134 Ill.2d R. 220) provides that the expert's direct testimony at trial may not be inconsistent with or go beyond the fair scope of facts known or opinions disclosed in discovery proceedings." (Decker v. Domino's Pizza, Inc. (1994) 268 Ill. App. 3d 521, 530 citing Bart v. Union Oil Co. (1989) 185 Ill. App.3d 64, 69; Fogarty v. Parichy Roofing Co. (1988), 175 Ill. App.3d 530, 541.) “The purpose of Rule 220 is to eliminate surprise at trial and to allow the parties to ascertain the basis of and rely upon the expert opinions disclosed through discovery.” (Bart, supra, 185 Ill. App.3d at 69.)