3303-Notice of Motion 2821-Centificate of Mailing Filed (3/04/05) CCDR.NO0S-SOM. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: ) ) JESSE JACKSON, JR., ) Petitioner ) 2.8 ) No. 16D 6506 2 ra, and ) 2 ) Calendar; D x SANDRA JACKSON, ) Respondent ) = » NOTICE OF MOTION cs To: Barry Schatz, Esq. Brendan J. Hammer, Esq. Berger Schatz 161 North Clark Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60601 Email: emailnotice@bergerschatz.com On January 31, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.,, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, I shall appear before the Honorable Carole Bellows or any judge sitting in her stead, in Courtroom No. 1602 at the Richard J. Daley Center, Chicago, Ilinois and present the attached: Motion to Quash and Objestiomto Discovery Issued by Petitioner and Motion to Supervise and For Disco i for Hearing, Instanter, Attomey No. 26828 Attorneys for Resp] Telephone No. (312) 641-5560 Facsimile No. (312) 641-6361 Service by Facsimile Transmission Will Be Accepted Service Preferred at: chicagoservice@sdflaw.com PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned states that on January 26,, 2017, | served this Notice of Motion, together with the documents referred to therein, to each person to whom it is directed, as follows: [] by personal delivery; and/or BX] by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail at 200 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois, with proper postage prepaid; and/or [_] by facsimile machine; and/or [XJ by email service. Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/1-109, I certify that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct. 7 ‘Susan Kmie 22275641 docx‘Atty No, 26828 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION IN RE: MARRIAGE OF JESSE JACKSON, JR, Petitioner, No: 16 D 6506 And SANDRA JACKSON, 21:2 Nd SZ ANE Le Respondent. MOTION TO QUASH AND OBJECTION TO DISCOVERY ISSUED BY PETITIONER AND MOTION TO SUPERVISE DISCOVERY AND FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AND REQUEST FOR HEARING, INSTANTER ‘NOW COMES the Respondent, SANDRA JACKSON (“Sandra”), by and through her attorneys, SCHILLER DU CANTO & FLECK LLP, pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rules 201, 214, and 219 and Section 5/2-1101 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1101) and in support of her Motion to Quash and Objection to Discovery Issued by Petitioner, JESSE JACKSON, JR. (“Jesse”), and Motion to Supervise Discovery and for Discovery Sanctions and Request for Hearing, /nstanter, Sandra states as follows: 1. On January 17, 2017 and January 18, 2017, Jesse, through counsel, issued vast discovery in this case in clear violation of this Court’s January 4, 2017 Order and Supreme Court Rule 201()), which limit discovery to the narrow issue of this Court’s jurisdiction. Jesse has improperly issued three third party subpoenas simply to harass Sandra and to engage in an unlawful and far-ranging fishing expedition for information. It is well-settled that the misuse of the discovery process to conduct a “fishing expedition” will be “properly shut down” by a court. See In re Marriage of Bennett, 306 Ill. App. 3d 246, 250 (2nd Dist. 1999). Illinois law does not 229289_1permit the use of the subpoena process to oppress, harass, add needless cost to litigation or to allow one party to conduct a general fishing expedition. See People v, Teller, 207 Il. App. 3d 346, 350-51 (2nd Dist. 1991). That the third party subpoenas issued to Garry McCarthy, Richard Simon, and James Love are improperly being used for the sole purpose of harassing Sandra is clear from the record. The subpoenas were filed in the public court file and immediately posted in online news articles, all without a copy being served on Sandra or her attorneys until over a day thereafter. The issuance and filing in the public record of unwarranted subpoenas full of unsupported innuendo can serve no constructive purpose to the parties or their children. Instead, this deliberate course of conduct reveals an improper intent to try this case in the media rather than before this Honorable Court. Sandra seeks a hearing instanter to prevent any further discovery abuse by Jesse, the consequence of which is the immediate dissemination of information to the public at large, including the parties’ teenage children. 2. On July 14, 2016, Jesse filed a Praecipe for Summons. On December 12, 2016, Jesse filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. 3. On November 3, 2016, Sandra, through counsel, filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia her Complaint for Legal Separation, Absolute Divorce, Child Custody, Child Support, Alimony, Suit Money and Other Relief. 4. OnNovember 10, 2016, Sandra filed her Objection and Motion to Dismiss Action for Dissolution of Marriage Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (“Objection and Motion to Dismiss”). m29289_1 25. On January 4, 2017, this Court entered an order in pertinent part setting deadlines for discovery related to the jurisdictional issues and scheduling a date for status regarding discovery and setting a hearing date regarding Sandra’s Objection and Motion to Dismiss. A copy of the January 4, 2017 Order is attached hereto as “Exhibit A.” 6. On January 17, 2017, Jesse, through counsel, issued subpoenas for deposition to Garry McCarthy, Richard Simon, and James Love (“Third Party Subpoenas”), Said subpoenas were filed with the court just prior to 4:00 p.m. A copy of said subpoenas is incorporated herein by reference as “Exhibit B.” 7. Annews article regarding these subpoenas was posted online on January 17, 2017 within approximately 30 minutes of the subpoenas being filed. Counsel for Sandra was not served with a copy of the subpoenas until over one day thereafter. 8 On January 18, 2017, Jesse, through counsel, served Sandra with discovery requests. A copy of said discovery requests is incorporated herein by reference as “Exhibit C.” 9. This Court's January 4, 2017 Order specifically limits the issuance of discovery to the pending narrow jurisdictional issues. 10. Additionally Supreme Court Rule 201(1) states, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) While a motion filed under section 2-301 of the Code of Civil Procedure is pending, a party may obtain discovery only on the issue of the court's jurisdiction over the person of the defendant unless: (a) otherwise agreed by the parties; or (b) ordered by the court upon a showing of good cause by the party seeking the discovery that specific discovery is required on other issues. Ilinois Supreme Court Rule 201 governs how discovery is conducted. In subsection (b)(1), the Rule further makes it clear that the scope of discovery is not unlimited — rather, discovery is restricted to such matters that are “relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” ILSup. Ct. R. 201(b)(1)(Emphasis supplied) 2229289_1 311. Contrary to this Court's Order and Supreme Court Rule 201(1), the subpoenas and additional discovery requests issued on behalf of Jesse are overly broad and burdensome as they contain vast requests for documents and information from the third party deponents and Sandra that have no relevance to the pending narrow jurisdictional issues in this matter. 12. Additionally, on information and belief, the subpoenas issued on behalf of Jesse are being used for the sole purpose of harassing Sandra. The subpoenas were filed in the public court file and then copies of the subpoenas immediately posted in online news articles, all without a copy being served on Sandra or her attorneys. 13. Illinois law does not permit Jesse to use the discovery or subpoena process to hharass Sandra or to engage in a fishing expedition for irrelevant information cloaked in ‘unsupported innuendo and received by the media prior to service on counsel for Sandra, 14, 735 ILCS 5/2-1101 provides, in pertinent part, that for good cause shown the Court, on motion, may quash or modify any Subpoena. 15, Additionally, Iinois Supreme Court Rule 201(c) states as follows: (1) Protective Orders. The court may at any time on its own initiative, or ‘on motion of any party or witness, make a protective order as justice requires, denying, limiting, conditioning, or regulating discovery to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or oppression, (2) Supervision of Discovery. Upon the motion of any party or witness, on notice to all parties, or on its own initiative without notice, the court may supervise all or any part of any discovery procedure. (3) Proportionality. When making an order under this Section, the court may determine whether the likely burden or expense of the proposed discovery, including electronically stored information, outweighs the likely benefit, taking into account the amount in controversy, the resources of the parties, the importance of the issues in the litigation, and the importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues. 2a2szs9_4 416. Sandra objects to the discovery requests served on her and seeks for this Court to quash the Subpoenas issued to Garry McCarthy, Richard Simon, and James Love. 17, Additionally, in order to prevent further discovery abuse by Jesse, Sandra requests, that this Court enter an order pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201(c) to supervise discovery and require Jesse to obtain leave of Court to issue discovery. 18, In furtherance of the public policy against using this type of improper gamesmanship in discovery, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(4) provides that if a party abuses the discovery rules, this Honorable Court may impose appropriate sanctions upon the party and/or her attorney, which may include an order that the offending party pay the other party’s reasonable attomey’s fees. Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 201(4). 19. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219(d), Sandra requests that this Court impose sanctions, including but not limited to, an entry of an Order that Jesse pay her attomeys' fees for the preparation and presentation of this Motion. WHEREFORE, the Respondent, SANDRA JACKSON, respectfully prays for the following relief instanter: A. For entry of an Order providing that the Subpoenas for Deposition to Gary McCarthy, Richard Simon, and James Love be hereby quashed; B. For entry of an Order providing appropriate sanctions pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219(€), including but not limited to payment of Respondent's attorneys’ fees for preparing and presenting this Motion; C. For the entry of an Order in accordance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201(c) for the Court to supervise discovery and require Petitioner to obtain leave of Court to issue discovery; and 2292891 5D. For such further and other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and equitable. SCHILLER DU CANTO & FLECK LLP Attomeys for Respondent SCHILLER DU CANTO & FLECK LLP Attomey No, 26828 Attomeys for Respondent 200 North LaSalle Street, 30th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60601-1089 Telephone No. (312) 641-5560 Facsimile No. (312) 641-6361 Service by Facsimile Transmission Will Be Accepted Service Preferred at: chicagoservice@sdflaw.com 229089. 6STATE OF ILLINOIS. ) 0) COUNTY OF COOK ) Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/1-109, I certify that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct except es to matters therein stated to tbe on information and belief and as to such matters I certify that I verily believe the same to be true. DATED: __!-26- 2017 ‘SANDRA JACKSON SCHILLER DU CANTO & FLECK LLP Attomey No. 26828 Attomeys for Respondent 200 North LaSalle Street, 30th Floor Chicago, Hlinois 60601-1089 Telephone No. (312) 641-5560 Facsimile No. (312) 641-6361 Service by Facszile Tansrsson Wil Be Accepted Service Preferred at: chicagoservice(@sdflaw.comIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: ) ) JESSE JACKSON, JR., ) Petitioner, ) No. 16D 6506 and ) ) SANDRA JACKSON, ) Respondent. ) AGEEED ORDER This cause coming before the court for status and setting of hearing, counsel for the parties present, the Court being fully advised in the premises; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: (1) Respondent is granted leave to Amend or Supplement her Objection and Motion to Dismiss Action for Dissolution of Marriage Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (“Objection and Motion to Dismiss”) to account for the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage subsequently filed by the Petitioner. Said Amendment or Supplement shall be filed and served on or before JAWUVALY $20. 0017, pestioneris granted until Abney BO 201710 Site and serve his Response to said Amendment or Supplement. (2) Respondent is granted leave to fle a Reply to Petitioner's Response to the Objection and Motion to Dismiss (including a Reply to any Response to the Amendment or Supplement). Said Reply shall be filed and served on or before SMA/2CH 3, 2017, ATE32 AN 3) Thismatter is cominued to V7 QAChy B 2017 for status!and sting of vee hearing date for Respondent's Objection and Motion to Dismiss as amended or supplemented, XHIBIT “A” ma079741(4) The time within which Respondent is required to plead to Petitioner's Petition for Dissolution of Marriage pursuant to 750 ILCS 5/411(b) is hereby tolled pending adjudication of Resyondect’s Objection and Matin to Dismiss intuding ny amendment ox pple oO @ Coupsek For. THE PARTIES SHACK MHEQLLE DEPOS/T/>: DATES For THE PARTIES” prep, ENTERED RESPECTIVE DE PoS/TIONWS. . JAN 04 204 QV 08 Be Pont |Aivtity I, 2017- 7 (6D ALK OTHER discove ey KE Fe1saCTex/ Ia 75GE SERVED acriu 14 OAYs OF TH15 dB DEE, sebTECT To SCHILLER DU CANTO & FLECK LLP SUPPLE MEN TATI ow OR OTHE 2 OLDER, ‘Attorney No. 26828 OF Conny LPL NEN) V2 wt ITTE Attorneys for Respondent 46, ee men OF THE PQhres, 200 North LaSalle Street, 30th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60601-1089 Telephone No. (312) 641-5560 Facsimile Telephone No. (312) 641-6361 Service by Facsimile Transmision Will Be Accepted morse‘Atty No, 26828 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION IN RE: MARRIAGE OF JESSE JACKSON, JR. ) ) ) ti ) Petitioner, ) ) No. 16D 6506 and ) ) SANDRA JACKSON, ) Respondent. } EXHIBIT “B” TO EMERGENCY MOTION TO QUASH OBJECTION TO DISCOVERY ISSUED BY PETITIONER AND MOTION TO SUPERVISE DISCOVERY AND FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE ONLY SCHILLER DU CANTO & FLECK LLP Attomey No. 26828 Attomneys for Respondent 200 North LaSalle Street, 30th Floor Chicago, Ilinois 60601-1089 Telephone No. (312) 641-5560 Facsimile No. (312) 641-6361 Service by Fasimile Transmission Will Be Accepted Service Preferred at: chicagoservice@sdflaw.com EXHIBIT “B” 12229337_1.doexAtty No, 26828 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISION IN RE: MARRIAGE OF ) » JESSE JACKSON, JR. » ) Petitioner, ) ) No. 16D 6506 and ) ) SANDRA JACKSON, ) ) Respondent. ) EXHIBIT “Cc” TO EMERGENCY MOTION TO QUASH OBJECTION TO DISCOVERY ISSUED BY PETITIONER AND MOTION TO SUPERVISE DISCOVERY AND FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE ONLY. SCHILLER DU CANTO & FLECK LLP Attomey No, 26828 Attorneys for Respondent 200 North LaSalle Street, 30th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60601-1089 Telephone No. (312) 641-5560 Facsimile No. (312) 641-6361 Service by Facsimile Transmission Will Be Accepted Service Preferred at: chicagoservice@sdflaw.com 2229337_I.docxM7 JAN 26 PH 2: 12 CLERK OF DOMESTIC Gist t ELATONS|