In re Marriage of Moss, 2019 IL App (1st) 181315-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Moss, No. 1-18-1315, 2019 IL App (1st) 181315‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., May 3, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner/Counter‑Respondent‑Appellee: Sylvia Moss. Respondent/Counter‑Petitioner‑Appellant: Jonathan Moss.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting the husband from testifying at trial on any financial matters as a sanction for discovery non‑compliance.
- Whether the sanction was punitive or the product of judicial bias. Applicability and scope of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c) (sanctions for discovery violations) in dissolution proceedings.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the Rule 219 sanction (barring the respondent from testifying about financial matters at trial) was not an abuse of discretion.

4) Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Timeline: petitioner served Rule 214 requests Aug. 2016; multiple follow‑ups (Rule 201(k) letter, motion to compel); court granted motion to compel May 22, 2017; respondent repeatedly failed to comply despite extensions and was held in indirect civil contempt, ordered to purge, subject to body attachment and suspension of parenting time. Trial court entered an October 10, 2017 order barring respondent’s financial testimony under Rule 219. Trial proceeded; court found respondent benefitted from his failure to provide financial information.
- Rule 219(c) authorizes excluding testimony on specific issues for unreasonable refusal to comply with supreme court rules or orders. Imposition of sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Given the record of long‑standing, repeated noncompliance, contempt findings, opportunities to purge, and the court’s specific discovery orders, the appellate court concluded the trial court acted within its discretion. The court rejected the appellant’s contention that progressive sanctions were required and found no basis to infer judicial bias.

5) Practice implications (concise takeaways for practitioners)
- Document discovery requests, Rule 201(k) communications, and compliance timelines carefully; courts will treat repeated, unexplained noncompliance harshly.
- Rule 219(c) is a potent remedy in family cases — exclusion of testimony on specific issues is available and will survive appellate review absent clear abuse.
- If opposing party refuses discovery, pursue motion to compel, motion for sanctions, contempt and enforcement (including purge conditions); ask for specific, tailored Rule 219 sanctions tied to the non‑compliance.
- For clients facing sanctions, promptly cure deficiencies, appear for purge hearings, and preserve the appellate record (motions, orders, proof of production) if contesting sanctions.
- Remember this opinion is a Rule 23 order (non‑precedential) but useful as persuasive authority on severity of sanctions for deliberate discovery abuse.