Willeford v. Toys "R" Us-Delaware, Inc.

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 5th District Appellate » 2008 » Willeford v. Toys "R" Us-Delaware, Inc.

State: Illinois

Court: 5th District Appellate

Docket No: 5-07-0201 Rel

Case Date: 09/16/2008

Preview:NO. 5-07-0201
N O T IC E Decision filed 09/16/08. The text of this dec ision m ay b e changed or corrected prior to the P e t i ti o n for filing of a or the

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

Re hea ring

FIFTH DISTRICT ________________________________________________________________________ LELA WILLEFORD, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) St. Clair County. ) v. ) No. 03-L-134 ) TOYS "R" US-DELAW ARE, INC., TOYS "R" US, ) INC., JANET STUBBLEFIELD, and CAROL ) POST MEYERS, ) Honorable ) Lloyd A. Cueto, Defendants-Appellants. ) Judge, presiding. ________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHAPMAN delivered the opinion of the court: The plaintiff, Lela Willeford, was injured when an easel fell from a shelf and struck her at a Toys "R" Us store. The defendants are Toys "R" Us-Delaware, Inc., Toys "R" Us, Inc., and two managers at the Toys "R" Us store where the plaintiff was injured. The defendants filed a motion for a protective order, which addressed documents that were the subject of an order compelling discovery. When they refused to comply with the discovery order absent a protective order, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for sanctions and ordered the defendants to pay $1,000 and the plaintiff's reasonable attorney fees for services rendered after February 13, 2007. The defendants appeal both the sanctions order and the order denying their motion for a protective order. They argue that (1) the court erred in refusing to grant the protective order and (2) the sanctions should be vacated because it was a "friendly contempt" order, sought by the defendants as a good-faith way of testing the court's pretrial discovery orders. We affirm. On December 15, 2001, the plaintiff was injured when an easel fell on her from a

disposition of the same.

1

shelf at one of the defendants' stores. On March 12, 2003, she filed a petition alleging that the defendants negligently failed to (1) safely store, shelve, or retrieve the easel, (2) implement an adequate policy regarding the safe storage, shelving, stacking, placement, and retrieval of merchandise, and (3) provide adequate training and supervision of employees in safely storing, shelving, and retrieving merchandise. The same day, the plaintiff served each corporate defendant with a set of interrogatories and a request for the production of documents. At issue in this appeal are interrogatory No. 3 and production requests No. 6 and No. 25. Interrogatory No. 3 asked as follows: "Other than the instant action, has this Defendant been a party in the last ten (10) years to any type of litigation, or received notice of an alleged injury or other claim, in any manner involving or otherwise pertaining to a box, container, product[,] or any other merchandise or item falling[] or being dropped or pushed[] from overhead, from a shelf or other raised platform or surfaces on the premises of any of Defendant's stores, and striking a customer, employee[,] or any other person?" The plaintiff further requested the name, address, and telephone number of any party or claimant in any such action; the name, address, and telephone number of any attorney involved; and how each claim was resolved. Production request No. 6 asked for the following: "Any and all documents *** relating to any investigation, study, evaluation, testing, or other form of inquiry conducted by or on behalf of this Defendant in any manner relating to the incidence of falling merchandise in any of its stores ***." Production request No. 25 asked for the following: "Toys 'R' Us' [ sic ] computer database listing all instances in which merchandise is alleged to have fallen onto and/or struck a person in any of Defendant's stores for the last ten (10) years."

2

The defendants' response to these interrogatories and requests for production were due on May 13, 2003. The defendants did not respond until June 26. In their interrogatory response, the defendants objected to interrogatory No. 3 on the grounds that it was "overly broad and unduly burdensome in its scope" and also asked for "information that is irrelevant and immaterial to the instant action." The defendants did, however, provide the name of one man who was involved in a falling-merchandise incident in the Fairview Heights Toys "R" Us store in 1997. The defendants stated that there was "no indication [that] there was an injury or any claim made." In their notice of compliance with the plaintiff's request for production, the defendants objected to request No. 6 on the grounds that it was "overly broad and not limited in time and scope" and included "documents which are not related to the incident in question." They objected to request No. 25 on the grounds that it was "overly broad and not limited in scope and irrelevant to the case at issue." On July 9, 2003, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. The defendants filed their response to the motion to compel on September 16. In it, the defendants raised the same objections they raised in their responses to the initial requests

Download Willeford v. Toys "R" Us-Delaware, Inc..pdf