In re Marriage of Mitchell, 181 Ill.2d 169, 174 (1998). However, "[w]here parts of an order are clearly separable, only that part which is in excess of the authority granted to the court is void." Shanklin v. Hutzler, 294 Ill.App.3d 659, 665 (1997) (citing Chapman, Mazza, Aiello, Inc. v. Ace Lumber &Construction Co., 83 Ill.App.2d 320, 335 (1967)). Whether the circuit court obtained personal jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Mitchell, 2014 IL 116311, ¶ 17.

The Court then cited several Illinois cases that came to the same conclusion, finding that respondents in discovery are a category of non-defendants unique to Illinois law. See, e.g., Westmeyer v. Flynn, 889 N.E.2d 671, 673 n.2 (Ill. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2008); Shanklin v. Hutzler, 691 N.E.2d 7, 13 (Ill. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1997); Engel v. St. Mary's Hosp. of Decatur, 555 N.E.2d 810, 811 (Ill. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1990). Thus, the Court in Boothe granted the respondent in discovery's motion to dismiss, because as a non-party, no case or controversy existed as between him and the plaintiffs under Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution.

More recently, in Westmeyer v. Flynn, 889 N.E.2d 671, 673 n.2 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2008), the Illinois Court of Appeals reiterated: "respondents in discovery are not parties to the action in which they are named." Accord Shanklin v. Hutzler, 691 N.E.2d 7, 13 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1995); Engel v. St. Mary's Hosp. of Decatur, 555 N.E.2d 810, 811 (Ill. App. 4th Dist. 1990). Rather, respondents in discovery are a category of non-defendants unique to Illinois law.

In Westmeyer v. Flynn, 889 N.E.2d 671, 673 n. 2 (Ill.App. 2008), the Illinois Court of Appeals reiterated: "respondents in discovery are not parties to the action in which they are named." Accord Shanklin v. Hutzler, 691 N.E.2d 7, 13 (Ill.App. 1995); Engel v. St. Mary's Hosp. of Decatur, 555 N.E.2d 810, 811 (Ill.App. 1990). Rather, respondents in discovery are a category of non-defendants unique to Illinois law.

Respondents in discovery are not parties to the action in which they are names and cannot seek dismissal of a discovery action in Illinois state court. Shanklin v. Hutzler, 691 N.E.2d 7, 13 (Ill.App.Ct. 1997) (non-party respondents in discovery improperly filed a motion to dismiss because "section 2-402 expressly permits respondents in discovery to file a motion to convert themselves into defendants, but is silent regarding any other motion").

Likewise, as a general matter, only parties may bring motions in respect to pleadings. See Conley v. Rust, 12 Ill.App.3d 26, 29, 297 N.E.2d 397 (1973) ; Shanklin v. Hutzler, 294 Ill.App.3d 659, 665–66, 229 Ill.Dec. 71, 691 N.E.2d 7 (1997) ; Jackson v. Pioletti, 346 Ill.App. 569, 573, 105 N.E.2d 779 (1952). Ms. McNeal, however, was not a party to the foreclosure proceedings and she never sought leave to intervene in the proceedings.