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: July 23, 2025 · Decided: September 29, 2025
Ruling
The court granted the motion on September 29, 2025: “Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Order Deeming Admissions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 216 is GRANTED. All 30 facts are deemed ADMITTED.”
The Motion (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, July 23, 2025)
McGivern asked the court to deem admitted all thirty requests to admit served June 24, 2025. Requests to admit are written statements a party must admit or deny; under Rule 216, unanswered statements are treated as established without proof. McGivern asserted the 28-day deadline fell on July 22, 2025, and that the document filed by Hadley on July 3 responded to ten differently worded statements rather than to the thirty served. He also requested that those responses be stricken, that Rule 137 sanctions (penalties for filings not grounded in fact) of $5,000 be imposed on Hadley and $10,000 on counsel, and that counsel be referred to the state attorney disciplinary commission.
The Response (Plaintiff Kyle Hadley, August 29, 2025)
Hadley argued that verified responses were served July 2, 2025, before the deadline, and that disagreement with their content did not make them non-responses. He argued McGivern filed without the Rule 201(k) conference, a required good-faith discussion between parties before bringing a discovery dispute to court, contrary to the court’s August 1, 2025 order. He cited Vision Point of Sale v. Haas and Bright v. Dicke for the court’s discretion to accept late or amended answers, argued amended responses addressing all thirty requests were served, and argued McGivern showed no prejudice.
The Reply (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, September 12, 2025)
McGivern argued none of the July 3 responses corresponded to the requests served, and that the amended responses came after the deadline and without the ordered conference. He argued Rule 201(k) does not reach the conduct alleged, and requested increased sanctions and dismissal of the complaint.
The Court Order (Judge Reilly, December 22, 2025)
The order states no findings beyond its rulings.
Documents
- Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendant’s Requests to Admit, July 3, 2025
- Motion for Entry of Order Deeming Admissions, July 23, 2025
- Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition, August 29, 2025
- Defendant’s Reply in Support, September 12, 2025
- Court Order, September 29, 2025