SPSS, Inc. v. Ellen Carnahan-Walsh

9 Citing cases

  1. Adami v. Belmonte

    704 N.E.2d 708 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 17 times
    In Adami v. Belmonte, 302 Ill. App.3d 17, 24, 704 N.E.2d 708, 713 (1998), the trial court barred opinions prior to trial; this court affirmed, in part because the admission of the opinions would have prejudiced the defendant.

    Plaintiff argues that defendants waived the right to bar Doctor Deziel from testifying by waiting until the first day of trial before raising the Rule 213 violation. In support, plaintiff cites Kosinski v. Inland Steel Co., 192 Ill. App.3d 1017 (1989), and SPSS, Inc. v. Carnahan-Walsh, 267 Ill. App.3d 586 (1994.) In Kosinski, defendant waited until the first day of trial before filing a motion to bar plaintiff's expert from testifying because of plaintiff's failure to seasonably identify the expert in violation of Supreme Court Rule 220 (134 Ill.2d R. 220) then in effect.

  2. Dexia Credit Local v. Rogan

    231 F.R.D. 268 (N.D. Ill. 2004)   Cited 76 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a corporation has a legitimate expectation that a person who leaves the control group no longer will be privy to privileged information"

    As originally presented, Mr. Rogan's control group argument was based on one case: Gottlieb v. Wiles, 143 F.R.D. 241 (D.C.Colo.1992). In his reply, Mr. Rogan for the first time argued that this is the rule under Illinois law as well, citing SPSS, Inc. v. Carnahan-Walsh, 267 Ill.App.3d 586, 204 Ill.Dec. 554, 641 N.E.2d 984 (1994) (Rogan Reply at 12). We conclude that Gottlieb does not reflect a correct application of the law of corporate privilege, and that there are " persuasive indications" that the Illinois Supreme Court-contrary to SPSS -would not adopt the view espoused in Gottlieb.

  3. Short v. Pye

    2018 Ill. App. 2d 160405 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 12 times
    In Short, we addressed whether the defendants could amend their motion for sanctions to add new attorneys beyond Rule 137's 30-day limit.

    Likewise, defendants cite Waste Management, Inc. v. International Surplus Lines Insurance Co. , 144 Ill. 2d 178, 200, 161 Ill.Dec. 774, 579 N.E.2d 322 (1991), where the allegedly privileged documents were put "at issue" by the party holding the privilege, and were, therefore, discoverable, but in circumstances where the "insureds [sought] to have insurers pay for their defense counsel's services while at the same time claiming that insurers have no right to examine counsel's files." Similarly, defendants quote SPSS, Inc. v. Carnahan-Walsh , 267 Ill. App. 3d 586, 592, 204 Ill.Dec. 554, 641 N.E.2d 984 (1994), as reflecting that "[a] party waives a claim of privilege by relying on a legal claim or defense, the truthful resolution of which required the examination of confidential attorney-client communications"; however, there, the clients had waived the privilege by suing the attorney for legal malpractice. See also Fischel & Kahn, Ltd. v. van Straaten Gallery, Inc. , 189 Ill. 2d 579, 244 Ill.Dec. 941, 727 N.E.2d 240 (2000) (privilege waived where a law firm sued the defendant for attorney fees and the defendant counterclaimed for legal malpractice).

  4. Janousek v. Slotky

    2012 Ill. App. 113432 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding the defendants abandoned their contention by focusing on other matters at the hearing and failing to obtain a ruling

    These cases do not control our determination, however, as our decision is governed by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201(a) (eff. July 1, 2002) and the Act, which specifically applies to LLCs. See Consolidation Coal Co. v. Bucyrus–Erie Co., 89 Ill.2d 103, 118–19, 59 Ill.Dec. 666, 432 N.E.2d 250 (1982) (finding that the control-group test protects consultations with counsel by decision makers and minimizes the amount of relevant material that is immune from discovery); see also Midwesco–Paschen Joint Venture for the Viking Projects v. IMO Industries, Inc., 265 Ill.App.3d 654, 657, 202 Ill.Dec. 676, 638 N.E.2d 322 (1994) ; SPSS, Inc. v. Carnahan–Walsh, 267 Ill.App.3d 586, 204 Ill.Dec. 554, 641 N.E.2d 984 (1994) ; Dexia Credit Local v. Rogan, 231 F.R.D. 268 (N.D.Ill.2004) ; Milroy v. Hanson, 875 F.Supp. 646 (D.Neb.1995) ; Gottlieb v. Wiles, 143 F.R.D. 241 (D.Colo.1992) ; Kirby v. Kirby, No. Civ. 8604, 1987 WL 14862 (Del.Ch.1987) (not reported).--------

  5. Janousek v. Slotky

    2012 Ill. App. 113432 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012)

    We note that Burton was not subject to the trial court's contempt order and thus, has not appealed in this case. See Consolidation Coal Co. v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 89 Ill. 2d 103, 118-19 (1982) (finding that the control-group test protects consultations with counsel by decision makers and minimizes the amount of relevant material that is immune from discovery); see also Midwesco-Paschen Joint Venture for the Viking Projects v. IMO Industries, Inc., 265 Ill. App. 3d 654, 657 (1994); SPSS, Inc. v. Carnahan-Walsh, 267 Ill. App. 3d 586 (1994); Dexia Credit Local v. Rogan, 231 F.R.D. 268 (N.D. Ill. 2004); Milroy v. Hanson, 875 F. Supp. 646 (D. Neb. 1995); Gottlieb v. Wiles, 143 F.R.D. 241 (D. Colo. 1992); Kirby v. Kirby, No. Civ. 8604, 1987 WL 14862 (Del. Ch. 1987) (not reported).

  6. Shapo v. Tires 'N Tracks, Inc.

    336 Ill. App. 3d 387 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 39 times
    Holding defendant had placed "at issue" the conduct of his former counsel by asserting former counsel engaged in an unauthorized settlement

    Thus, when a client sues his attorney for malpractice, or when a lawyer sues his client for payment of fees, waiver is applicable to earlier communications between the now-adversarial parties. In re Marriage of Bielawski, 328 Ill. App. 3d 243, 254, 764 N.E.2d 1254 (2002); see also SPSS, Inc. v. Carnahan-Walsh, 267 Ill. App. 3d 586, 592, 641 N.E.2d 984 (1994) (legal malpractice claim). In this case, the core of the instant litigation is premised upon defendant's complaint that its former attorneys were not authorized to settle the case on its behalf.

  7. In re Marriage of Bielawski

    328 Ill. App. 3d 243 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 25 times
    Finding agreement conscionable where the court and wife were fully aware of the value of husband's pension when wife waived her property interest in it

    When a client sues her attorney for malpractice, waiver is applicable to earlier communications between the now-adversarial parties. See SPSS, Inc. v. Carnahan-Walsh, 267 Ill. App.3d 586, 592, 641 N.E.2d 984 (1994) (legal malpractice claim). In this case, petitioner filed a malpractice claim against her attorney on September 21, 2000, wherein she alleged that her attorney was negligent in failing to determine the present value of her husband's pension; for failing to secure the pension as marital property; for failing to evaluate the tax consequences of filing the pension as income; and for advising petitioner that she had no choice but to consider the pension as a part of a "stream of income" instead of as property.

  8. Fischel Kahn, Ltd. v. Van Straaten Gallery

    301 Ill. App. 3d 336 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 9 times
    In Fischel & Kahn, Ltd. v. Van Straaten Gallery, Inc., 301 Ill.App.3d 336, 234 Ill.Dec. 773, 703 N.E.2d 634 (1998), the court held, in reliance on the Illinois Supreme Court's dicta in Waste Management, that an at-issue waiver occurs only where " the sought-after material is either the basis of the lawsuit or the defense thereof."

    When either party to the attorney-client relationship alleges a breach of duty by the other, the privilege is waived as to communications between the disputing parties. Thus, when a client sues his attorney for malpractice, or when a lawyer sues his client for payment of fees, waiver is applicable to earlier communications between the now-adversarial parties. See SPSS, Inc. v. Carnahan-Walsh, 267 Ill. App.3d 586, 592, 641 N.E.2d 984 (1994) (legal malpractice claim); People v. O'Banner, 215 Ill. App.3d 778, 793, 575 N.E.2d 1261 (1991) (allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel waives claim of privilege as to communications with attorney); Sokol v. Mortimer, 81 Ill. App.2d 55, 65, 225 N.E.2d 496 (1967) (attorney suing for fees). This example of waiver is clearly inapplicable to the present case, since Fischel Kahn seeks discovery of van Straaten's communications with subsequently retained attorneys, not communications between Fischel Kahn and van Straaten.

  9. In re Marriage of Bonneau

    294 Ill. App. 3d 720 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 30 times
    Holding husband did not put health at issue by filing dissolution petition and wife accordingly not entitled to husband's medical records

    The Department accused the plaintiff of improperly treating the complainant and found that the plaintiff's diagnosis of the complainant was a crucial element of the Department's complaint in determining whether the treatment was proper. Cf. SPSS, Inc. v. Carnahan-Walsh, 267 Ill. App.3d 586 (1994) (communications with an attorney are in issue when a party files a malpractice claim against the attorney); People v. O'Banner, 215 Ill. App.3d 778 (1991) (communications with an attorney are put in issue when a criminal defendant asserts ineffective assistance of counsel). Conversely, in Tylitzki, 126 Ill. App.2d 144, the court held that the plaintiff in a negligence action did not affirmatively place her mental condition in issue by including an allegation for pain and suffering in her complaint.