AI-generated summary. This entry was produced by an AI system from the court documents linked below. It reports what each party argued and what the court decided; it does not evaluate either. It is not legal advice and does not reflect the site owner’s opinion. The linked documents are the authoritative record.
Case: Hadley v. McGivern, No. 2025-CH-05527 (Cook County, Chancery Division) · Judge: Eve M. Reilly
Filed: October 1, 2025 · Decided: December 22, 2025
Ruling
The court denied the motion on December 22, 2025, stating: “Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Rule 137 Sanctions is DENIED because the Court already issued a sanction in the form of deeming facts admitted.”
The Motion (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, October 1, 2025)
McGivern requested an order specifying sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137, which requires that filings be well grounded in fact and permits penalties when they are not. He asserted that two of his motions granted on September 29, 2025 found fabrication of an exhibit and of discovery responses, but that the orders set no amounts. He requested $2,500 against Hadley for the exhibit, $2,500 against Hadley for the discovery responses, $5,000 against attorney Mason Cole personally, and $5,800 for 58 documented hours at $100 per hour, totaling $15,800. He also requested that future exhibits be accompanied by sworn authentication affidavits.
The Response (Plaintiff Kyle Hadley, October 17, 2025)
Hadley argued that an order deeming facts admitted under Rule 216 (a discovery rule under which unanswered requests to admit are treated as admitted) is a discovery consequence and not a finding of falsity or bad faith. He argued Rule 137 requires proof that a filing was made without reasonable inquiry and with knowledge of its falsity at the time of signing, and that no such evidence was offered. He argued the request was procedurally defective for lack of a fee affidavit or itemized billing, and duplicative of the sanction already imposed.
The Reply (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, October 18, 2025)
McGivern argued the record involved fabrication rather than an ordinary discovery dispute, citing Cole’s September 29, 2025 statement in open court and the deemed admissions. He argued that Rule 137 sanctions and discovery sanctions serve different purposes, and that a pro se litigant may be compensated for time spent addressing sanctionable conduct.
The Court Order (Judge Reilly, December 22, 2025)
The order contains no findings on this motion beyond the stated basis for denial.
Documents
- Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Order Specifying Rule 137 Sanctions, October 1, 2025
- Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions, October 17, 2025
- Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion for Entry of Order Specifying Rule 137 Sanctions, October 18, 2025
- Court Order, December 22, 2025