pretrial discovery violation in Illinois

1999Hawkins, 235 Ill.App.3d at 41 , 175 Ill.Dec. 680 , 600 N.E.2d 923 .

1999Hawkins, 235 Ill.

2026App. 3d 1018, 1019 (1980). ¶ 82 “The preferred sanction for a pretrial discovery violation is a continuance if it would - 22 - protect the defendant from surprise and prejudice.” Rubino, 305 Ill.

1994(Tzystuck, 124 Ill. 2d at 234 , citing 107 Ill. 2d R. 220.) In Tzystuck, the Illinois Supreme Court recognized that treating physicians typically are not retained to render an opinion at trial but are consulted, whether or not litigation is pending or contemplated, to treat a patient’s physical or mental problem.

1963In fact, in his brief the State’s Attorney says: “The point involved in the case at bar is not whether the document here in question should have been available in pretrial discovery proceedings” and further, “It is conceded that the plaintiff could not have reached this document at the pretrial discovery stage.” The cases of People v. White, supra, and Eizerman v. Behn, 9 Ill App2d 263, 132 NE2d 788 , are controlling of the question involved in the case at bar.

1963In fact, in his brief the State’s Attorney says: “The point involved in the case at bar is not whether the document here in question should have been available in pretrial discovery proceedings” and further, “It is conceded that the plaintiff could not have reached this document at the pretrial discovery stage.” The cases of People v. White, supra, and Eizerman v. Behn, 9 Ill App2d 263, 132 NE2d 788 , are controlling of the question involved in the case at bar.