District Judge Staci Yandle rejected an argument by the Maag Law Firm that it failed to respond to Madison County State’s Attorney Tom Gibbons’ motion for summary judgment in a discovery dispute due to court closures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Plaintiff failed to respond or seek an extension,” Yandle wrote. “Plaintiff’s counsel now claims that he mistakenly believed the court’s recent administrative orders issued in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic extended his time to respond.
“The court’s first administrative order addressing COVID-19 was issued on March 21, 2020 – more than a month after plaintiff’s response was due. Counsel’s claim is disingenuous, specious, irreconcilable with excusable neglect, and thus, cannot support plaintiff’s request for relief.”
The suit seeks access for criminal defendant clients to discovery materials, which are required to remain in the exclusive custody of defense counsel in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 415.
Gibbons filed a motion for summary judgment on Jan. 15 through attorney Joseph Devereux III of Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard PC in St. Louis.
Devereux wrote that summary judgment is proper because Gibbons is not an appropriate defendant in that he did not enact the rule at issue in this case, merely provides notice to defense counsel of their obligations under the rules, and does not have the authority to impose sanctions on defense counsel.
“Gibbons does not have the unilateral authority to sanction plaintiff or any other defense counsel for a violation of the rule,” Devereux wrote. “While Gibbons could petition the court to impose sanctions against plaintiff, the power to petition the court to invoke sanction is not the power to sentence.”
Devereux added that “a criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to review discovery materials.”
“In 2006, the IJC Committee recommended the rejection of a proposed amendment to Rule 415 that would have allowed a criminal defendant to maintain copies of discovery materials due to the risk it posed to increased harassment and intimidation of witnesses and alleged victims,” he wrote.
Devereux also wrote that the plaintiff lacks standing to sue because “it has not suffered an ‘injury in fact’ and brought this lawsuit on behalf of unidentified future clients.”
Yandle granted the motion on April 24, finding that Maag Law Firm failed to respond to the motion.
“Here, as MLF failed to respond to the pending motion for summary judgment, it has surrendered its opportunity to avoid dismissal of its claims,” she wrote.
As a result, Yandle dismissed the case with prejudice.
Maag Law Firm filed a motion to vacate, arguing that it had misunderstood the court’s rules in response to COVID-19 and filed its request to vacate “at the earliest opportunity to do so.”
“Plaintiff disputes the validity of the motion [for summary judgment], and believes that it is entitled to win this case on the merits.
“That due to recent administrative orders issued by this court, it was plaintiff’s counsel’s understanding that the time to respond to matters in this court were tolled and/or continued, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has generally shut down many law firms and courthouses.
“That plaintiff apologizes to this court in that it misunderstood the administrative orders,” attorney Thomas Maag wrote.
Yandle denied the motion, noting that a response was due in February prior to limited court activity due to COVID-19.
Maag filed the suit in Madison County Circuit Court on Jan. 23, 2019. It was removed to federal court on Feb. 20, 2019.
He sought declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the portion of Supreme Court Rule 415 that reads, “Any materials furnished to an attorney pursuant to these rules shall remain in his exclusive custody …”
“That it is the experience of plaintiff that many, if not all of its criminal clients wish to see the discovery produced, and many, if not most, wish to acquire copies of same to review at home, in order to be better informed of their case, and to be able to more intelligently be able to analyze the information and ask questions of their attorneys,” Maag wrote.
Maag wrote that Gibbons routinely provides a notice to defendants that states, “NOTICE TO DEFENSE COUNSEL: Discovery materials are provided to you in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 415. This material shall remain in your exclusive custody and shall not be given to the defendant or any other person. A failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 415 may provide the People with a basis for sanctions allowed under that Rule.”
Maag argued that the rule is “interpreted and threatened to be enforced” by Gibbons, who “literally prohibits the single most interested person in the discovery, the defendant in the criminal case, from being able to take possession of same, review same on his own time without involving the time and expense of being in an attorney office, and being able to formulate the more useful questions for their attorney.”
He added that while the firm as “fastidiously” complied with the rule, “plaintiff believes that continuing to do so is hampering its ability to fully and zealously represent its clients, is interfering with the ability to have full and frank discussions with its clients, is violating the rights of its clients to full discovery in their cases, and is frankly, interfering with the administration of justice.”
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:19-cv-225