In re Marriage of Handler, 2024 IL App (3d) 230119-U

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Handler, 2024 IL App (3d) 230119-U - Summary: When a divorcing spouse repeatedly stonewalled discovery requests—dodging employment records, canceling depositions, and ignoring court deadlines—an Illinois appellate court upheld the nuclear option: her entire case was dismissed with prejudice, permanently eliminated. In re Marriage of Handler now serves as a stark blueprint for family law practitioners, confirming that documented, persistent discovery obstruction can trigger case-ending sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c), transforming noncompliance from a delay tactic into litigation suicide.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot when your client has documented every single discovery failure—and In re Marriage of Handler just handed Illinois family law practitioners the blueprint for making noncompliance catastrophic.

This December 2024 decision from the Third District Appellate Court confirms what high-stakes divorce litigators already know: discovery obstruction is not a delay tactic. It is a termination event. The respondent in Handler learned this when her pleadings were dismissed with prejudice—not suspended, not sanctioned with fees, but eliminated entirely—for repeated refusal to produce employment records, payroll documentation, and respond to discovery deadlines.

The judge already knows when your opposing party is stalling. The appellate court just made clear they will uphold the nuclear option when the record supports it.

The Strategic Landscape: What Handler Actually Decided

Let's strip away the procedural noise. Elizabeth Abeysekera, the respondent-appellant, engaged in a pattern of discovery failures that the trial court found intolerable:


Incomplete and untimely responses to discovery requests
Failure to produce employer and employment records critical to financial determinations
Cancelled depositions
Continued noncompliance after explicit court warnings and deadlines


The trial court issued an order stating that failure to respond would result in dismissal. Respondent failed. The court dismissed her pleadings with prejudice. She filed multiple motions to vacate, rehear, and modify. All denied. The appellate court affirmed across the board.

The legal mechanism: Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c), which authorizes sanctions—including dismissal—for unreasonable refusal to comply with discovery or discovery orders. The appellate court applied abuse-of-discretion review and found the trial court acted within its authority.

The Rule 219(c) Framework: When Dismissal Becomes Inevitable

Rule 219(c) is not a suggestion box. It exists to preserve court integrity and enforce discovery obligations. The Handler court emphasized the established framework:


Dismissal with prejudice is a drastic sanction reserved for deliberate, contumacious, or unwarranted disregard of court authority
It is normally appropriate only after lesser enforcement measures have failed
The trial court must demonstrate a pattern of noncompliance, not isolated failures


What made Handler particularly instructive is the appellate court's willingness to affirm even when the trial court's written order did not explicitly cite Rule 219(c). The court applied the principle that a dismissal may be affirmed if any legal ground in the record justifies it. The record here was damning: continuances granted, conditional orders issued, warnings given, deadlines set—and still, noncompliance.

The Cyber-Legal Intersection: Digital Evidence and Discovery Obstruction

Employment records are no longer paper files in a cabinet. They exist in payroll platforms, HR software, cloud-based accounting systems, and email threads with supervisors. When a party claims they "cannot locate" employment documentation, the forensic question becomes immediate: where is the data, and who controls access?

Discovery obstruction in 2025 often masks digital evidence destruction or concealment. Consider the following scenarios that trigger both family law sanctions and potential cyber-negligence exposure:


Selective production from cloud platforms: A party produces some payroll records but omits bonus structures or equity compensation visible in the same system
Deleted communications: Text messages or emails with employers regarding compensation arrangements that have been removed from devices but remain recoverable through forensic imaging
Cryptocurrency and alternative compensation: Employment arrangements involving digital assets that never appear in traditional payroll documentation


When opposing counsel claims technical difficulties or lost access, your response is straightforward: subpoena the employer directly, engage forensic experts to image devices, and document every evasion for your Rule 219(c) motion. The Handler court made clear that the trial court properly considered less drastic remedies before dismissal—but those remedies must be pursued and documented to build the record for ultimate sanctions.

Practical Offensive Strategy: Building the Dismissal Record

If you represent the party seeking discovery compliance, Handler provides a tactical roadmap:


Serve precise, targeted discovery requests. Vague requests invite vague objections. Specify document categories, date ranges, and custodians. Employment records should include contracts, offer letters, bonus plans, equity agreements, payroll summaries, and all communications regarding compensation.

Document every failure in writing. Send meet-and-confer correspondence after each missed deadline. Attach the original discovery request, note the response deadline, and identify specific deficiencies. Create a paper trail that eliminates any claim of confusion.

Move for court intervention early. File motions to compel with supporting affidavits detailing noncompliance. Request specific deadlines and explicit warnings in the court's order. The Handler trial court issued an order stating dismissal would follow continued failure—that order became the foundation for the ultimate sanction.

Request conditional remedies before dismissal. The appellate court noted the trial court's prior attempts at less drastic measures, including conditional orders requiring production before reimbursement. This record of graduated enforcement strengthens the eventual dismissal motion.

Invoke Rule 219(c) explicitly in your motion. Do not rely on the court to identify the correct authority. Cite the rule, quote the standard for dismissal, and apply the facts to the legal framework. Make the court's job straightforward.


Defensive Strategy: Avoiding the Handler Outcome

If you represent a party facing discovery pressure—particularly regarding employment or financial records—the Handler decision demands immediate attention to compliance posture:


Respond to every discovery request by the deadline, even if responses are partial. Serve what you have, identify what remains outstanding, and provide a specific timeline for supplementation. Silence is the pathway to sanctions.

Preserve proof of good-faith efforts. If production is delayed due to employer noncooperation, third-party subpoena requirements, or technical access issues, document every step taken. Affidavits from your client explaining efforts to obtain records are essential.

Seek extensions before deadlines expire, not after. File motions for additional time with specific explanations. Courts distinguish between parties who communicate proactively and parties who simply ignore obligations.

Never cancel depositions without immediate rescheduling. The Handler record included cancelled depositions as evidence of noncompliance. If a deposition must be rescheduled, provide alternative dates in the same communication.


Judicial Considerations: What Handler Signals for Trial Courts

The appellate court's analysis offers guidance for trial judges considering dismissal sanctions:


Issue clear, specific discovery orders. Ambiguous deadlines or undefined production requirements create appellate vulnerabilities. State exactly what must be produced, by when, and the consequences for failure.

Document consideration of lesser sanctions. The Handler record showed continuances, warnings, and conditional orders before dismissal. This graduated approach insulates the ultimate sanction from abuse-of-discretion challenges.

Make findings regarding contumacious conduct. While the Handler trial court's order did not explicitly cite Rule 219(c), the appellate court found sufficient record support. Explicit findings on deliberate disregard strengthen the dismissal on review.

State the authority relied upon. The appellate court affirmed because the record supported dismissal under Rule 219(c), but explicit citation in the trial court's order eliminates ambiguity and streamlines appellate review.


The Power Dynamic: Discovery as Leverage

High-net-worth divorce litigation is fundamentally an information war. The party with superior access to financial data controls the negotiation. Handler confirms that Illinois courts will enforce discovery obligations with finality when obstruction becomes a litigation strategy.

For the party seeking disclosure, this decision is a weapon. Document everything. Escalate appropriately. Build the record for sanctions that cannot be reversed.

For the party facing disclosure obligations, this decision is a warning. Compliance is not optional. Courts are watching. Appellate courts are affirming.

The respondent in Handler lost her pleadings—entirely, permanently, with prejudice. Her multiple attempts to vacate, rehear, and modify all failed. The appellate court affirmed without hesitation.

Your opposition should understand: this is the outcome when discovery becomes a game.

Immediate Action Items

If you are currently litigating a family law matter in Illinois involving employment records, compensation disputes, or financial disclosure:


Audit your discovery compliance immediately
Review all outstanding discovery requests and response deadlines
Identify any court orders regarding production and verify compliance
Document all efforts to obtain records from third parties
Prepare affidavits establishing good-faith compliance efforts


If you are facing an opposing party who has failed to produce critical financial documentation, begin building your Rule 219(c) record now. The Handler court has confirmed that dismissal with prejudice is available—and will be affirmed—when the record supports it.

The consultation you schedule today determines whether you are the party holding the sanctions motion or the party defending against one.

Book your strategy session now.

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, CEH, ISC2). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Consultation

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.