Ye v. Goettl et al

Filing 25

ORDER: Defendants' Motion to Compel Certain Discovery Responses from Plaintiff 19 is denied. See attached Statement for further details. Signed by the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert on 12/30/2014. All matters relating to the referral of this matter having been resolved, this case is returned to the District Judge. Referral terminated. Mailed notice (ber, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Maochun Ye,
Plaintiff(s),
Case No. 14-cv-01531
Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert

v.
Kevin Goettl et al,
Defendant(s).
ORDER

Defendants' Motion to Compel Certain Discovery Responses from Plaintiff [19] is denied. See
Statement below for further details.

STATEMENT
Defendants Cliff Viessman, Inc., and Kevin Goettl ("Defendants") move to compel
Plaintiff Maochun Ye ("Plaintiff") to answer Defendants' Interrogatory No. 24 and produce
documents in response to Defendants' Requests to Produce Nos. 10 and 12. Plaintiff objects to
responding substantively to Defendants' interrogatory and requests for production of documents
on the ground that the discovery sought is irrelevant, unduly burdensome and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Defendants' discovery requests are overbroad, unduly
burdensome and seek evidence that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence within the meaning of Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. In the Court's view, it is unlikely that evidence concerning the wealth or
poverty of Plaintiff's decedent's next of kin would be admitted at the trial of this case on the issue
of what decedent was likely to contribute to her next of kin had she not died, although this Court
is not deciding the question of admissibility at this time. The Court agrees with Plaintiff's
argument in the parties' joint filing [ECF 19] that the wealth or poverty of the decedent's next of
kin generally is not considered in determining Plaintiff's damages in an action such as the case at
bar. See Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction ("IPI") 31.07 ("Ordinarily evidence is not admitted as to
wealth or poverty or the widow or next of kin"); Exchange National Bank of Chicago v. Air
Illinois, Inc, 167 Ill. App. 3d 1081, 1088-89 (1st Dist. 1988).
The Court does not agree with Defendants' interpretation of the note to IPI No. 31.07 as
recognizing that wealth or poverty evidence of the next of kin is admissible as a matter of course
to rebut the presumption that the decedent's next of kin have "sustained some substantial
pecuniary loss by reason of the death." IPI 31.06. Rather, the note and the case law cited by the
parties lead the Court to conclude that such evidence is not admissible in the ordinary course but
only as a curative measure to the extent such evidence does make it into the record in a particular
Rev. 10/2013

case. On the record before it, the Court does not believe this is a case in which such wealth or
poverty evidence relating to decedent's next of kin would be admitted so the curative provision
would be inapplicable. As such, Defendants' discovery requests do not seek evidence that is
relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence within the
meaning of Rule 26(b)(1).
Accordingly, for these reasons, Defendants' Motion to Compel [19] is denied. It is so
ordered.

Date: 12/30/2014
Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert

Rev. 10/2013