McGivern v. Hadley Case Documents

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

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Sanctions

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: September 2, 2025 · Decided: December 22, 2025

Ruling

On December 22, 2025 the court granted the motion in part, ordering Hadley to produce the Bank of America statements for January 2023 through July 2023, October 2023 through December 2023, August 2024 through September 2024, and June 2025 through July 2025, and to produce legible Venmo statements. The motion was denied in part as to Interrogatory No. 5, and the court “declines to enter sanctions relating to this Motion to Compel.”

The Motion (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, September 2, 2025)

McGivern asked the court to strike three versions of Hadley’s discovery responses, to bar further interrogatory responses, to compel production of specified records within 48 hours, and to impose evidentiary and monetary sanctions, including adverse inferences (a direction that missing evidence be treated as unfavorable to the party who withheld it). He argued that two verified versions of the responses gave conflicting accounts of contractor access, that fourteen months of bank statements were absent, that no communications with occupants were produced, and that sworn figures for condominium sale proceeds and a vehicle purchase differed from a settlement statement and a purchase receipt.

The Response (Plaintiff Kyle Hadley, October 3, 2025)

Hadley argued that he had served verified answers, amended and supplemental responses, and an affidavit of completeness stating no further responsive materials exist. He argued he cannot be compelled to produce documents not in his possession, custody, or control, and that the requests were overbroad, not proportional, and beyond the scope of the claims.

The Reply (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, November 24, 2025)

McGivern argued that the gaps in produced bank statements, the absence of tenant communications, and the differing sworn statements rendered the responses unreliable, and renewed his request to strike all versions and impose sanctions.

The Court Order (Judge Reilly, December 22, 2025)

The court overruled all objections in Hadley’s written discovery responses, and stated that responses were provided over objection and were sufficient apart from the supplementation specified. Supplemental production was ordered completed by January 20, 2026.

Documents

AI Summaries
Case Documents