Case Summary
Items marked as Premium 
are available to registered users. Sign in now for unlimited access.
are available to registered users. Sign in now for unlimited access.
Complete Conference Coordinators, Inc. v. Kumon North America, Inc., 2009 Ill. App. LEXIS 790 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Aug. 14, 2009).
An Illinois appellate court declined to adopt a rule that an opponent's production of email in discovery authenticated the email.
Plaintiff appealed summary judgment for defendant—a former employee—on plaintiff's claim that the employee intentionally interfered with a contract between plaintiff and a customer. Plaintiff had attached several email documents to its opposition to the employee's motion for summary judgment, but the trial court ruled the email exhibits were inadmissible for lack of foundation even though the employee had produced the email during discovery.
The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the employee. Other jurisdictions by rule or case law had adopted the proposition that production of a document in discovery authenticated the document. However, there was no similar rule in Illinois cited by plaintiff, and the court declined to adopt such a rule. In any event, according to the court, plaintiff could have used traditional methods of authentication—such as asking the employee about the email during her deposition—but chose not to in an effort not to disclose its theory of the case. The court thus concluded that "because plaintiff failed to provide anything to the trial court to authenticate the e-mails other than the fact that defendant produced them in discovery, the trial court did not err in deeming the e-mails inadmissible."
<< Click here to go backPlaintiff appealed summary judgment for defendant—a former employee—on plaintiff's claim that the employee intentionally interfered with a contract between plaintiff and a customer. Plaintiff had attached several email documents to its opposition to the employee's motion for summary judgment, but the trial court ruled the email exhibits were inadmissible for lack of foundation even though the employee had produced the email during discovery.
The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the employee. Other jurisdictions by rule or case law had adopted the proposition that production of a document in discovery authenticated the document. However, there was no similar rule in Illinois cited by plaintiff, and the court declined to adopt such a rule. In any event, according to the court, plaintiff could have used traditional methods of authentication—such as asking the employee about the email during her deposition—but chose not to in an effort not to disclose its theory of the case. The court thus concluded that "because plaintiff failed to provide anything to the trial court to authenticate the e-mails other than the fact that defendant produced them in discovery, the trial court did not err in deeming the e-mails inadmissible."
