McGivern v. Hadley Case Documents

Repository of public court documents from Cook County cases 20251707919 and 2025CH05527

Motions to Stay the Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 191(b), and Defendant’s Motion to Continue the May 20, 2026 Deposition

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: January 26, 2026 through May 6, 2026 · Decided: January 26, March 24, and April 27, 2026

Ruling

The court denied a first Rule 191(b) stay motion on January 26, 2026 because the affidavit was signed by counsel rather than a party. On February 2, 2026 the court stayed summary judgment briefing pending resolution of the refiled motion, then denied that motion on March 24, 2026. A third stay motion was denied with prejudice (barring it from being brought again) on April 27, 2026, and the court set a new schedule: response May 18, 2026, reply June 1, 2026, clerk’s status June 2, 2026. On May 12, 2026 the court granted McGivern’s motion to continue the deposition, with Hadley stating no opposition.

The Motions (Plaintiff Kyle Hadley, January 26 and April 16, 2026)

Hadley requested a stay of briefing on McGivern’s summary judgment motion under Rule 191(b) (which permits a court to deny or continue summary judgment where the opposing party cannot yet present facts essential to its opposition). Hadley asserted that counsel sought McGivern’s deposition availability in October 2025, that McGivern conditioned availability on leave of court, and that the court instructed on November 5, 2025 that oral discovery was stayed pending rulings. Hadley argued the summary judgment motion turns on assertions of intent and credibility not tested by deposition. The April motion attached affidavits from Hadley and counsel listing five subjects of expected testimony and stated that written discovery and a deposition notice had issued April 15, 2026.

The Response (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, March 1, 2026)

McGivern argued the affidavit does not state what Hadley believes McGivern would testify to, that the affidavit’s account of the parties’ communications is contradicted by counsel’s October 28, 2025 email, that Hadley served no written discovery during the litigation, and that the summary judgment motion relies on Hadley’s own deemed admissions and documents. He proposed written interrogatories or a Rule 212(b) written deposition as an alternative.

The Reply (Plaintiff Kyle Hadley, March 2, 2026)

Hadley argued the request was temporary and targeted rather than a delay, that summary judgment is not a substitute for discovery, and that the inquiry is whether material facts have been developed rather than how long the case has been pending.

The Related Motion (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, May 6, 2026)

Following the April 27 order, McGivern moved under Rules 201(c)(1) and 201(k) to continue his May 20, 2026 deposition until after a ruling on summary judgment, arguing the response is due May 18, that a ruling could moot the deposition, and that no discovery cutoff or trial date is set. Hadley filed no written response and stated no opposition at presentment.

The Court Orders (Judge Reilly, January 26, March 24, April 27, and May 12, 2026)

The January 26 order found Rule 191(b) requires the affidavit to be that of a party. The March 24 order found the affidavit does not state that material facts are known only to persons whose affidavits the affiant is unable to procure, and that “it is unclear what the Defendant would testify to if sworn and why this information is necessary.” The April 27 order, citing Kim v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2021 IL App 200135, found the affidavit does not state what Hadley believes the discovery will reveal. The May 12 order continued the deposition “until a reasonable date after the Court rules on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” and states no further findings.

Documents

AI Summaries
Case Documents