MOUNT VERNON – Asbestos lawyers who discovered a treasure of information about old pumps can’t use it beyond a single case, Fifth District appellate judges ruled on Aug. 25.
In a binding opinion they affirmed Madison County asbestos judge Stephen Stobbs, who entered a protective order for defendant GIW Industries.
They found plaintiffs Joel and Linda Linder didn’t articulate any specific purpose for which they needed the information outside of their case.
The Linders sued GIW and 26 other companies in 2017, for the estate of Peabody Coal employee Robert Linder.
GIW moved to dismiss, identifying itself as a Georgia corporation and denying any contact with Illinois.
Stobbs denied the motion.
GIW sought review at the Fifth District, Illinois Supreme Court, and U.S. Supreme Court, and they all denied it.
GIW raised another jurisdictional challenge before Stobbs.
In discovery, GIW produced bills of material for pumps it sold to Peabody.
GIW’s representative stated in a deposition that employees recorded on each bill whether it specified that the pump’s packing contained asbestos.
GIW claimed the bills proved it didn’t sell pumps with asbestos in Illinois.
Plaintiff counsel John Steffan of the Maune Raichle firm in St. Louis requested production of every bill GIW created, any time and anywhere.
He claimed the information was necessary to test the assertion that the packing was always noted on the bill.
GIW objected, stating it kept bills indefinitely over the course of 100 years.
This February, Stobbs ordered GIW to produce all bills from 1967 to 1986, the period in which it sold pumps to Peabody.
GIW counsel Paul O’Flaherty of Chicago moved for a protective order prohibiting dissemination of the bills outside of the Linder litigation.
O’Flaherty claimed they represented many years of association with clients and contained details of their purchases and preferences.
Steffan responded that the information was stale, the argument was speculative, and GIW presented no evidence that disclosure would harm it.
Stobbs held a hearing in March and entered the order.
“Plaintiffs and their counsel may use the said material in this litigation, but not publish same to other third parties without any interest in this litigation without consent or leave of court,” Stobbs wrote.
The Linders petitioned the Fifth District for review.
GIW moved to stay any appeal while Stobbs decided on jurisdiction or to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.
GIW lost the jurisdiction argument but won the information argument.
Justice Randy Moore rejected the position of the Linders that discovery must be confidential or contain trade secrets to be the subject of a protective order.
He cited a precedent that, “Protective orders are a part of the arsenal of tools a court may use to oversee discovery and prevent harassment.”
He wrote that the nature of the order depends on the facts of the case.
He wrote that should another purpose for the information outside of the litigation come to light, the Linders remained free to seek leave of court to use it.
Justices Thomas Welch and David Overstreet concurred.